A few months ago I released an experiment video explaining how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using the shadow of sticks. The method was performed almost two millenia ago, and produced quite accurate results (considering the ‘equipment’ used). But it was far from being the only (or first) method to understand our planet’s shape.

Humanity has known the Earth to be round for a few millenia and I’ve been meaning to refine that video and show more of these methods of how we figured out the world is not flat. I’ve had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) wrote about a recently published BBC article about “The Flat Earth” society. Phil claims it’s ridiculous to even bother rebutting the flat earth society – and I tend to agree. But the history of our species’ intellectual pursuit is important and interesting, and it’s very much well worth writing about. You don’t need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanity’s quest for space.

Though I have researched this subject, I am quite certain there will be much more to be said about it – feel free to add more in the comments. If all goes well, this might actually be a good post to refer to whenever anyone wants to discuss a bit of ancient science and the source of cosmological thought.

On we go to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat:

(1) The Moon

Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.

Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

Refer to the following image from Wikipedia for more details on what happens during a lunar eclipse:

Click for the Original
Click for the Original

(2) Ships and the Horizon

If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.

Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.


(3) Varying Star Constellations

This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:

(4) Shadows and Sticks

If you stick a stick in the [sticky] ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:

Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. To see this demonstrated, refer to my experiment video about Eratosthenes and the circumference of the earth – “The Earth’s curvature is tasty!“.

(5) Seeing Farther from Higher

Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.

Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:

(6) Ride a Plane

If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-destination trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:

  • Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also, theoretically (and some do, though with stops along the way), circle the earth.
    Correction (Courtesy of Klaynos, from scienceforums.net): Apparently, planes can circle the Earth without stopping!
  • If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the earth in the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait seeing the pictures from the new plane by “Virgin Galactic” – the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.

(A picture of the curved horizon from a Concorde plane can be seen here).

(7) Look at Other Planets

The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same.

In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.

In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.

A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.

(8) The Existence of Timezones

The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.

In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.

(9) The Center of Gravity

There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.

Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all.

Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.

I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.

Further reading about the center of mass and about distribution of mass can be found here. And if you are brave enough to handle some equations (not involving integration), you can learn some more about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

(10) Images from Space

In the past 60 years of the space exploration era of humanity’s history, we’ve launched satellites, probes and people to space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it) and transmit amazing images over to our receivers on Earth.

Here’s a list of some of the pictures we’ve seen from space throughout the years:

October 24, 1946: A group of scientists in the New Mexico desert saw the first grainy photo of the Earth. The photograph was taken from a height of 65 miles (104.6 kilometers) by a 35-millimeter motion picture camera riding on a V-2 missile.

August 14, 1959: First crude photo of the Earth from the Explorer VI satellite. The photo showed a sun-lit area of the Pacific ocean and cloud coverage. It was taken from about 17,000 miles (27,350 kilometers) above the surface.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

June 5, 1966: Astronaut Eugene Cernan took this amazing picture of Gemini 9 and the Earth during his EVA (Extravehicular Activity). The spacecraft itself and Cernan’s “umbilical” (the cord that keeps him connected to the spacecraft’s systems) are visible on top of a beautiful background of the Earth.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

August 23, 1966: First view of Earth from the Moon. This picture was taken by Lunar Orbiter I when the spacecraft was on its 16th orbit and was just about to pass behind the Moon. (Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

December 29, 1966: A spectacular view of the rising Earth from the Moon, taken by the crew of Apollo 8 after coming out from the other side of the Moon, approximately 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) from Earth.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

December 1, 1968: Photo of Earth from Apollo 8. This photograph was taken by an 80-mm lense, at a point very close to the Moon.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

More pictures from the NASA Missions throughout the years can be found at NASA GRIN Website: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/index.html

Brief List of Manned Missions to Space

In the past 60 years humanity’s quest for Space has produced hundreds of pictures, videos and audio records from more than just the United States. Some of these countries used to be enemies. Some still are. The amount of proofs, from opposing countries and ‘sides’, for the non-flatness of the Earth, if nothing else, should cast serious doubt on any possibility for the existance of “Global Conspiracy”. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the first missions to space:

  • April 12, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-1): Yuri Gagarin, becomes first man in space.
  • May 5, 1961 (USA; Mercury-3): Alan Shepard becomes first American in space.
  • July 21, 1961 (USA; Mercury-4): Gus Grissom performs the second sub-orbital flight at an altitude of 126 miles (203 kilometers).
  • August 6, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-2): Gherman Titov becomes the first man to spend an entire day in space.
  • February 20, 1962 (USA; Mercury-6): John Glenn orbits the Earth at a distance of 100-162 miles (161-261 kilometers).
  • May 24, 1962 (USA; Mercury-7): Scott Carpenter orbits the Earth three times.
  • August 11, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-3): Andrian Nikolayev leads the first four-day flight, and first “group” flight with Vostok-4.
  • August 12, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-4): Pavel Popovich mans the other half of the “group” flight with Vostok-4.
  • October 3, 1962 (USA; Mercury-8): Walter Schirra orbits the Earth six times.
  • May 15, 1963 (USA; Mercury-9): Gordon Cooper pilots the longest (and last) Mercury mission, lasting 34 hours in space.
  • June 14, 1963 (USSR; Vostok-5): Valery Bykovsky is the first to stay 5 days in space.
  • June 16, 1963 (USSR, Vostok-6): Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first woman in space, spending three days in orbit.

You can find a full list of the chronology of manned space missions at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

More Methods Throughout History

  • Abu Rayhan Biruni (sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments.
  • Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical.
  • A Bit of History: Neil Armstrong narrating this video of the Earth as viewed from the Apollo 11 Command Module on its way to the Moon.

Credits and Thanks

This is a very long post, but it was fun to write (and learn about!). There is some credit due to other people, and I am not one to hold out the cheers:

  • Klaynos, from scienceforums, for his Physics mastery late at night.
  • insane_alien from scienceforums, for directing me on the path of a good #9.
  • Cap’n Refsmmat from scienceforums, for clarity issues, physics help, and saving you (the reader) some of my ramblings.
  • Keren, for her editorial help and general (good) advice.
  • Daniel and KerenG, for their mental and grammatical support.

Extra Resources


  1. I’m struggling to believe that the picture shown at:
    … was actually taken from a Concorde (cruising height approx 11 miles according to that page).

    Doesn’t the curvature in that image look greater than in another picture you link to:
    … which was “taken from an altitude of 65 miles”, according to that page?

    I think the sciencemuseum pic is just there to illustrate the curvature of the Earth – their text is arguably misleading. (And if they’ve changed the picture since you linked to that page, fair enough!)

    1. @SB, that’s a good point, I found that picture on the museum’s site, but that was after I have read in a few places that you can see the curvature of the Earth from the concorde.

      I have no idea if the caption on that site is wrong or not, but you do make a good point about seeing a bigger curvature than what the 1945 (higher) picture shows. Not sure why this is, perhaps something with the equipment that the picture was taken.

      I did, however, find more pictures for the vew from the Concorde:

      You can still see the curvature of the Earth throught those pictures, but it seems to support your claim, still, that the picture in the science museum site is either badly captioned or taken with some sort of extra filter.

      Thanks for pointing this out.


  2. Yeah…. maybe you’re right but you forgot The Conspiracy!

    Most of the instruments you can buy today are tweaked in a way that make you to *believe* the Earth is round.
    Many of the homegrown experiments you show, can be explained for example by hills on a flat ground.

    …and we all *know* that nobody ever flew to the moon, don’t we?

    BTW: I’m just kidding: I never wrote this, you didn’t see me and I’ve never even been here…


    1. The flat earthers are so ridiculous that it almost seems like the main reason they insist on “their” view is only to get attention…

      It’s completely insane.. by today’s standard of average intelligence one can quickly come to the conclusion that the earth is round simply by observing a few things in an average day:

      The sunrise/sunset
      The moon that sometimes puts in an appearance even during the day…
      etc…. etc…

      And to the folks at flat earth society who have now gone as far as to say sattelites do not exist:
      Lemme ask you a question to rival the stupidity of that statemant but has more merit:
      How does google earth manage to work then…. ?
      and yes I can see you standing in youre back yard thinking up new shitty theories on why the earth is flat!!!


      1. Actually, most of the close up images from google earth are taken from low altitude planes.

        1. Most of? but not all? lol….. O.K. so what is your’e point? because what ever it is it definitely does not disprove my point…… Flat earthers should stop seeking attention and seek a cure for cancer or sumthing with all that spare time…..

          Ciao losers

          1. @Bendix,

            Normally I’d say “it’s sometimes hard to bring yourself to agree with people even if they’re right” but, to be fair, just you’re saying that the Earth is round so you’re not exactly getting marks that.

  3. When saying that ‚Äúhumanity‚ÄĚ has known the earth is round for millennia, you have to remember that only a minuscule number of thinkers had been privy to this knowledge until the rise of science in the 17th century: the vast majority of humanity lived within the context of their day-to-day lives, that is, within a ‚Äúflat-earth‚ÄĚ context. This was ‚Äúcommon sense‚ÄĚ to most people because it was, sensually speaking, what one experienced everyday. This kind of phenomena is the reason why most Americans still believe that evolution is either untrue–because it supposedly contradicts the Bible–or is only a ‚Äútheory‚ÄĚ. You would have had the same problem if you had tried to convince Europeans the earth was round in the 15th century, they would have thought you either a wacko or a heretic. A certain Polish astronomer named Copernicus dealt with this problem, just as biologists have had to deal with it since Darwin.

    1. SO in effect what your’e saying in layman’s terms is: people are smarter to day than they where hundreds of years ago? thanks man.. who knew?

      Just imagine my pulling out my laptop in front of the vaticcan a couple of hundred years ago to spy on the pope with a satellite… that would have gotten me into trouble….

    2. @spinoza,

      I think you’re confusing “didn’t care” with “thought the Earth was flat”. Why would a medieval person’s life be affected by thinking the Earth was flat or round? Frankly, how exactly would a modern day person’s life be different? Flat Earthers aren’t gravitationally attracted to the centre of the plane despite their beliefs.

  4. The earth is flat becuse it says in the book of Isaiah in the Bible that the eart his flat.

  5. Abu Rayhan Biruni’s method was discussed on a BBC4 program in the UK, Science and Islam. Basically, he needs a large cliff or hill next to the sea. He then measures the height of the hill by measuring the angle to the mountain top from two points 100m apart in a direct line to the top of the mountain. He then measures the angle to the flat horizon (hence next to the sea) and uses this data to work out the radius of the earth. I have the episode recorded so I could look up the trig details if you want.

  6. I have doubt about observation using point 2) Ships and the Horizon on a beach. The ship even the largest vessel on earh will still be very small compares to the vast horizon of earth’s diameter considering our
    visibility at sea level, the beach. Simply because of the following factors: visibility, the proportion of the ship vs the diameter of the earth’s horizon.
    In my opinion a ship will appear to the observer as a dot turning bigger and bigger until it become visible. If our earth is small enough at a proportion of orange and the ant, then we can use point 2 to oberva the curvature of the earth. I wonder does anyone has ever done the experiment as mentioned in point 2) above?

    1. LucyGuy,

      The point of this observation is simple: If you look at the horizon through binoculars, you will first see the top of the sail, then the rest of the ship emerges, as if it pops out of the water. This is a very simple experiment to do on your own.

      This means that the world is round, quite simply. There is no other way to explain it, other than perhaps that ships drown and resurface when they come close to the beach, which is evidenced as .. well.. false.

      No offense, but your opinion here doesn’t matter. Science doesn’t go by opinions, it goes by experiments and observations. The observations are different than your opinion. The observations are ALWAYS the same, without a single exception. That makes your opinion quite clearly wrong.

      Experiments WERE done, and showed that ships seem to “pop out” of the water. This is something you can see for yourself.. find a pier close to you and bring binoculars. Look at ships leaving towards the horizon (it will be simpler than waiting for a random ship to approach). If you do it enough times, you will see this phenomenon happening in front of you, and the ships will look like they’re sinking into the water.

      If you have video equipment, it might even be easier, as you can just record a few hours worth of ships coming and going and see for yourself.


      1. godsgirl2332


        Actually, this has been disproved. I can’t say whether I’m for a flat or round earth, but there is scientific proof that Albert Einstein introduced to prove this theory false, or otherwise unusable in this argument.

        We forget that light is subject to gravitational pull. Therefore, over large distances, light begins to slope downwards. Over a horizon, the light reflecting off a ship will fall before it reaches the human eye. Therefore, a flat earth would still be plausible.

        This theory also discounts the proof of pictures of the round earth from space. At such a great distance away, the light refracting from a flat earth would appear to be pulled down into a perfectly spherical shape.

        Again, I don’t I’m not going either way on this argument, I’ve just been taught a lot of credible information from either side.

  7. Flat earth is certaily stupid but evolution is only partially true and many fallacies equate part to whole. Can you explain the following with evolution?
    “Considering the long existent of primates on earth, they are good in mimicking, able to use tools and the fact that they have so much similarities with human genes? Being human certainly has the advantage over primates.
    Q. Why don’t they choose to evolve into human beings like us instead of evolved into primates if they were once your ancestors? The answer can only accepted with proven science. Therefore do not answer with intelligent design?

    1. LucyGuy,

      Evolution is very well evidenced in science, not just history. The only “missing links” the theory has are the same “missing links” a ladder might have in between its steps – that is, there are no missing links. Everything we find in geology, physics, history, chemistry and biology fits absolutely perfectly to the validity of the theory. Interestingly enough, whenever a new evidence is found to support the theory (hence, a new “filling” to a previous “missing link”) it serves to strengthen the theory further, but also create two more missing links “before it” and “after it”.

      But those aren’t really missing links, are they?

      Furthermore, it seems interesting that you decidedly claim that flat earth is wrong because of scientific evidence, but choose to ignore the same methodology used and state that evolution is wrong. Both explanations are evidenced in science, through the scientific method. If you accept the methodology, they’re both quite well evidenced.

      If you discard one, shouldn’t you discard ALL theories that use the scientific method? Otherwise, what system do you use to differ between the theories that are “correct” and those that aren’t, other than personal bias? How do you get rid of personal bias and treat reality objectively facing theories that you like and dislike?

      The scientific method is meant to get rid of as much bias as possible in a situation where human beings (who are prone to biases) are doing the research. If you decide to toss that methodology aside, you will encounter problems with biases in your view of reality. How do we learn about objective reality and toss our personal biases aside?


  8. Well, with a powerful telescope, a gigantic ship so that the size of the ship compares to the earth is proportional to an ant to an average size orange. Then, it’s a different story.

  9. Mooeypoo,

    You didn’t get my last question clearly otherwise you would have understand that I believe Darwin’s evolution is also wrong. That’s what I am saying, I am discarding both because they use the same scientific methodology namely near-sighted.

    Flat earth was very evidence at their time and knowledge. If someone never traveled far at their time, skies to them were more understood as mythology than coordination of the planets. The ground of their great empire underneath them was flat because their measurement of “their flat earth” was limited by their thinking and knowledge. They were probably right at their time and place, but the earth underneath them does not represent the Earth we known today. Because our knowledge of sky today is beyond our own planet.

    Change the “earth” into “time” and expand it in the above explanation, you would understand why Darwins theory of evolution is the flat earth equivalent of the formation of living things on earth.

    Would someone understand Darwin’s theory of evolution answer my above question why primates choose to be primates rather than humankind after millions of years. If people believe their ancestors are apes, why then their scientific name is different from us. Why didn’t apes classify as homo sapiens?

    Why is it there’s a huge difference between the intellectual level of human and primates? Ok, The answer is the brain. But what makes brains of different species so different if they all originated from single cell organism living on the same earth for millions of years?

    What determine the branching of species among highly intellectual species? Why can’t you find a living example of apes at the transition stage into human somewhere in the secluded forest?

    Until today those believe in Darwin’s evolution still can not resolve the missing link and they just come out with whatever conjecture. Trying whatever unfounded bits and pieces trying to fill the missing link Otherwise they would not call it the “missing link” but some terms more concrete.

    1. If people believe their ancestors are apes, why then their scientific name is different from us. Why didn’t apes classify as homo sapiens?

      Genetically speaking, you want the work Chimps, and to be technical, the Bonobo. That’s like asking why we don’t call dogs feline or birds canine. They aren’t the same thing, and unless you’ve been hanging out in a jungle eating bugs from your family, then I don’t think you’re a chimp. Primates are part of the family Hominidae, with Gorillas (gorilla), Humans (homo), and chimps (pan) all being part of the same sub family. The genus seperation is for pretty obvious reasons.

      1. OK, I made a mistake in the sentence “Why is it there‚Äôs a huge difference between the intellectual level of human and primates?” I was trying to say human and other primates according to your scientific definition.

        The key point I was trying to say are:
        1 Humans and apes are from different ancestors even they appear to be similar in the eyes of some scientists. If your scientific knowledge insists you and chimps or bonobos are of the same family or sub family, you are welcome to believe so but we are pretty sure our ancestors were not coming from the same family as the chimps and bonobos. Please don’t ask me why.

        2. Science may not be 100% correct. Sometimes they are just the theory of a handful scientists who happened to know more than the majority. Time and time again many so called scientific facts had turned out to be wrong. E.g. are the flat earth theory in the old days, Pluto as a planet, etc. The more powerful tools and data we got, the more we get closer to the truth.

          1. I thought that’s what I did… is there any “proof” for the flatness of the Earth that disproves all the points I made? Do show, if there is.

    2. godsgirl2332



      From what I’ve come to know, species evolve as species, not a single organism at a time. We don’t find half-evolved chimp/humans in the rainforest because we ARE the evolved and evolving creatures. Every species that exists today is in the product as well as in the process of evolving. Difference in similar species such as the different classifications of Homos are due to separation of some sort in time for a long period of time, be it geographic or social. They became separated and evolved so differently that they became separate species. But there are no members ‘left behind’ evolution-wise according to this theory. This is just the most widely accepted theory in science.

      I’m a creationist but I’ve done a lot of research from either point of view and I find it all fascinating ūüôā I hope this helps

  10. what’s the distance in kilometer if a man with the height of 1.7m stand on sea to the point of the sightview limit of the earth’s curvature?

    1. I am not surprised such a web site about flat earth theory exists nowadays.
      Our society are full of those kind of people. They are the average class in a society. Imagine if everyone are smart like you guys, I am sure you won’t be able to get the affordable services/products you are enjoying now.
      Just get any celebrity, someone persuasive to tell some stupid things that appears to be turth, chances are you will get a bunch of followers. To the wise people, “Partial Truth” appears to be truth but is not exactly truth.

      1. There are still people who never leave their hometown their entire life who can esily believe the earth is flat. It’s hard and a waste of time to convince them otherwise.

  11. Gilles Feyrit

    Congratulations for this brilliant & crystal clear compilation of centuries of human doubt & deductive thinking!

  12. Well… I can see someone’s been successfully trolled… Seriously, there’s no point in arguing with these people. It’s like arguing with the DHMO people, or YouTube commentators. Honestly, they’re just trying to get attention and reaction.

  13. Christian Dillstrom had a book mark to your post. Any idea why? Mobile + social media marketing virtuoso’s do not recommend something without a reason.

  14. I would like to point out a few flaws in the arguments against a flat Earth provided.

    FET = Flat Earth Theory
    RET = Round ‘ ‘

    1) This starts with the assumptions that the the darkening of the Moon is a shadow, and that it is of the Earth. Two things that need to be supported.

    2) Ships dipping below the horizon can be explained. http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
    There have been cases where using a telescope has been able to restore parts of the hull that were “hidden”

    4) The assumption “If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow” is not backed up and is contrary to what would be expected in modern FET.

    6) Circumnavigation can be explained in FET. You travel in a circle around the Earth, just like in RET.

    7) This a form of begging the question. You are assuming the Earth shares enough qualities with other celestial bodies so that they can be classified together. You then use that as an argument to show that the Earth shares properties with other celestial bodies.

    8) The Sun travels in a circle along the equator. When the Sun is directly overhead an area, it is noon. Noon is at different times in different areas, ergo time zones are explained.

    9) Gravity as we know it does not exist in FET. The Earth accelerated upwards.

  15. The joke is on everyone who is bothered by or spends time trying to refute the Flat Earth Society. Nicely played, FES, nicely played. ūüėČ

  16. John D de Vries

    I wonder…
    If I take a photograph of the horizon with a wideangle 105 deg at eye level (1.75m)
    Wkat would be the width of the horizon covered on my final image in km

    Thanks in advance,

    John d de Vries

  17. Rikard Nilsson

    I only glanced over the page but I think you forgot the simplest one of all:
    Start walking in one direction, when you reach your starting point you’ve disproven that the earth is flat.

  18. great it really helped in my science essay so thanks and i really appreciate it thanks for making a great website i will recomend it to me friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. barberdone

    I’m struggling to believe that the picture shown at:
    … was actually taken from a Concorde (cruising height approx 11 miles according to that page).

    Doesn’t the curvature in that image look greater than in another picture you link to:
    ‚Ķ which was ‚Äútaken from an altitude of 65 miles‚ÄĚ, according to that page?

    I think the sciencemuseum pic is just there to illustrate the curvature of the Earth ‚Äď their text is arguably misleading. (And if they‚Äôve changed the picture since you linked to that page, fair enough!)


    @SB, that’s a good point, I found that picture on the museum’s site, but that was after I have read in a few places that you can see the curvature of the Earth from the concorde.


    Critical thinkers, we got here: Focal length. Cropping. Seemingly, the very fundamentals of photography, and simply, imagery (with lack of description), elude you.

  20. Oh, and FET, or Flat Earth Theory, is written a lot in these parts. “Conjecture,” would be the more accurate term.

  21. michaelstvns6

    I hate how people say the phrase, “Round Earth Theory” it is not a theory it is a fact that the earth is round. Flat Earth THEORY believers are ignorant and refuse to listen to reason. So basically Flat Earth THEORY people believe that all the world’s governments and science authorities lied to everyone for almost no reason, and that all the astronauts and everyone who works at NASA are lairs who are hell bent on spreading the idea that the Earth is round. ¬†Oh yeah and everyone who has ever piloted and airplane is in on the conspiracy too.

    1. LivingSovereign’s comments were offensive and were deleted.

      LivingSovereign if you want to speak your mind, you may, regardless of opinions, but if you spout hatered or racism, your comments will be deleted on sight.

      I’m sure you’re capable of speaking without resorting to cheap racist slurs. And if not, go away.

    2. JimmyVermeer

      LivingSovereign, your terrible spelling and racism speaks volumes about your level of intelligence.

  22. Discovery Boii

    The earth is not round, it’s spherical, if u say round u speak of a 2 dimensional object.

  23. If the earth is spinning on its axis while orbiting around the sun, then you couldn’t have the polaris rotation. Since the polaris rotation is real you can’t have a spinning rotating earth. That’s one huge score for the flat earth model (geocentricity) team.

  24. The earth we are told has a diameter of @8,000 miles or roughly 40 million feet.  Times 3.14 for the earth circumference is @ 125 million feet.  A line from either pole to the equator is thus one quarter of the circumference or @ 32 million feet.  A line from either pole to the equator descends below the pole 4,000 miles or 20 million feet. Thus, for each foot from a pole to the equator there is a descent of roughly 2/3 of a foot.  Thus, a mile and a half from the pole there is a descent of of @ 1 mile according to these calculations. 
    This is not what we see here on earth.  In Los Angeles, for example Catalina Island is 26 miles off shore but is visible to the naked eye most days.  According to the calculatons above we  should not be able to see Catalina Island.  Catalina should be miles below the horizon.  How can this be unless the earth is not spherical?

    This simple calculation must be explained in order for the spherical earth theory to remain viable.

    1. nick100 Your calculation has an error. The earth’s surface curves at ~8 inches per mile. Also, the island isn’t flat, it’s sticking out of the ocean with its highest point at 2,096 feet.
      Using correct calculations, you can see approximately 1,600 feet of Catalina island (from the horizon to the peak of Mount Orizaba) from 26 miles away – i.e., the mainland. If the island were to “drift” away, the peak would disappear behind the horizon at approximately 59 miles
      So from the mainland you can easily see a portion of the island. Just do the research…

      1. nazzer nick100 
        tangent 90 degrees to the radius gives vaying results when the length of
        the tangent is increased.   A tangent of 10, 100, or 1000 will bring a
        curvature much greater than when using 1 mile tangent.   Chord sagitta
        works better.
        2//3 of the curvature of a circle or circumference from a tangent  accounts
        for 1/2 the descent of the circumference along the radius from the
        tangent.  Thus, the final 1/3 of the circumference accounts for 1/2 of the
        descent of circumference along the radius.  This is a peculiar aspect of a
        circle.  Lots of peculiar aspects of the earth hiding in plain sight.
        The earth is a sphere. Everyone knows that.  The earth does have some
        For example, The nile river is over 4,000 miles long and is the longest
        river on earth.  Strangely, it is one of the few rivers that flows south to
        north uphill and it flows through a desert with very few feeder rivers.
        The curvature of the earth seems to have no effect on the nile river.
        My research shows your method of calculation does not work.   The curvature
        of an 8,000 mile diameter sphere is much greater than 8″ per mile.

        1. nick100¬†nazzer Just think for moment… you said, “Thus, for each foot from a pole to the equator there is a descent of roughly 2/3 of a foot.¬† Thus, a mile and a half from the pole there is a descent of of¬†@¬†1 mile according to these calculations.” That sounds like a steep hill to me. A person with average height can see about 3 miles to the horizon. And the Nile flows uphill??? No, the higher ground is in the south.

        2. nick100¬†nazzer The curvature is 8″ per mile, it’s just that the calculation is parabolic. If you move that 1 mile, the earth will curve another 8″ for another mile FROM your new starting point. From your initial starting point though, the drop of course is greater than 8″; it is in fact 32″. Basic mathematical principles, does this make sense?

          1. nazzer nick100 
            Maybe the issue is semantic. 8″ per mile is not enough to account for the traverse of the circumference along the radius or 4,000 miles.
            Did you try your equation with the tangent at 100 miles or a 1000 miles?¬† The longer the tangent the greater the difference above the earth.¬† Inconsistent results.¬† The traverse of a circumference along the radius starts slow and increases dramatically near the end of the radius.¬†¬† We know a traveler following the radius to a tangent will traverse 4,000 miles along the circumference relative to the radius.¬† That’s a big drop and a lot of curve most dramatic near the end of the radius because of the nature of a circle.¬† Your quote above needs to account for this unique aspect of a circle.¬†

            My question about the nile was in regards to the curvature of the earth and the impact the curvature should have on the nile.  the height of the land does not compensate for the curvature of the earth.  
            Think of it in miniature.¬† A 2 foot beach ball with a 1/16 inch raised secion from half way down the beach ball more less like the terrain the nile flows upon.¬† What would happen if a 1/32 ” flow of water was put on that raised section?¬† It would not move towards Cairo because the curvature of the beach ball would cause the water to flow downfill towards the source of the water.

          2. nick100¬†nazzer You didn’t understand, that’s okay… . The curvature of the earth has no or little impact on the Nile, gravity affects the flow; hence, high ground to low ground. Earth has radial gravity (it is a planet after all), it’s not linear O.o what is this nonsense about a beach ball?

          3. nazzer nick100 
            I tried.  It is difficult for some to comprehend new ideas.  Vaya bien.
            It would

          4. nick100¬†nazzer You just have to think of the 8″/mile thing as parabolic in nature. If you don’t move: after one mile, each consecutive mile is going to cause a greater increase in “drop” relative to your initial starting position. However, If you move, the tangent also moves; the angle changes.
            You take care too.

          5. BruceRobinson1

            nazzer¬†nick100 Idiots. ¬†The distance in miles is squared then multiplied by eight inches.. i.e. at five miles straight from your eyeline is 5x5x8″
            Get your math correct before you try to defend some spinning ball…which does not exist and all evidence is not in favor of a ball.

          6. Enkiclan777

            damn you both just blow my mind..I need basic formulas to prove to some flat earthers on my page but shit..lol. you both are like computers..my guess is androids from the demetions below this flat earth.lol j/k. most these flat earth society people believe the elite are tricking us with the moon, sun and stars so they throw out any ofvthe shadow stuff or looking at the earth thru space because it’s an illusion from the elite.(lol) also why the airline routes travel the way they do and waste jet fuel. I know there are polar routes but my guess was atmospheric pressure is different at the poles which would burn fuel at different rates due to the pressure and flying at different altitudes as well. I found out the extreme temperatures play a factor in fuel and freeze rate also to warm the cabin probably is a factor too. they also claim gravity is a lie.wth,wth,wth!!!. I sure appreciate any replies from either of you whiz kids;)

      2. nazzer¬†nick100 To calculate the “drop” of the earth use this formula:

        8″ x the square of the distance from the viewer in miles

        For example: at 2 miles away the drop is 8″ x 2 x 2=32″

        For Catalina Island at 26 miles away:
        8″ x26x26=5408 inches or 450′ drop

      3. ransomovitch

        nazzer nick100 Nazzer, you are wrong it is not 8 inches per mile. DO not refer to google or wickepedia for your information. Your calculation is a common error. The correct calculation is distance squared (distance x distance) x 7.934 (most people use 8 Р the inch drop) divided by 12 = the total drop in inches over that distance. So over 26 miles to Catalina Island, there would have to be an observable drop of 37.5 ft and all good pictures show NO DROP AT ALL. The vista is flat. The ball is in your court . Do not parrot she said, he said, they said, do your own research, you will be dumbfounded.

    2. ransomovitch

      nick100 hear hear! Until that is explained, every other argument is adjusting deckchairs on the Titanic

  25. JimmyVermeer

    @Rikard Nilsson no, it just means one of your legs is longer than the other and you’ve just walked in a circle.

  26. JimmyVermeer

    @Harutsedo If the earth is constantly accelerating upwards, it shouldn’t be long before we’re all in heaven.

    1. JimmyVermeer According to the Vedic cosmology, the earth plane does not move upwards at all. There is no gravity force as we know it but there is the law of attraction, the force that attracts a part to its source (the whole), so whatever is made of earth will be attracted back to earth but fire will always go upwards as it belongs to the sun. The Vedic cosmology also explains that earth is an spherical island on a bigger salty ocean where there are 8 more islands fully inhabited by humans. This universe is like a bubble and there are countless bubbles like that one. In the middle of the “bubble” there is the plain of death where our “island” resides with all other islands. Below there are demoniac planes and above there are subtle celestial planes but God’s abode is beyond the material universe.

      1. JimmyVermeer

        gopika you don’t really believe that, do you?¬† The Mars Rovers were built on Earth, yet they sit on Mars.¬† Why don’t they fly back to Earth?¬† And if fire belongs to the sun, why is it possible to start a fire at night time?¬† Also, there is no evidence that humans inhabit other planets.

  27. TomPayton

    My favorite argument from the flat-Earthers is the two airplanes, flying between NY & LA at 500 mph. ¬†IF the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph, then, in fact, one plane is moving at 1500 mph, while the other, also flying at 500 mph in the opposite direction, must be moving backwards at 500 mph! ¬†Since this is not the case, the Earth must NOT be spinning. And besides, you would FEEL the motion of the Earth as it rotated on its axis,, revolved around the Sun, around the galaxy, and around the universe. ¬†They actually believe this! ¬†They claim there was NO Moon Landing, NO trips to space at all, no Shuttle, NO satellites, and NO gravity. ¬†Then, they take an “Artist’s rendition” from any number of NASA space missions, and question who took the picture? Proving NASA is lying, and we cannot possibly get to space. ¬†It goes on and on and on, and is extremely frustrating! ¬†ALL photos showing the curved horizon are through curved windows, or curved Go-Pro lenses. ¬†Oh, and the Bible references the “Ends of the Earth”, or “The four corners of the Earth”, proving we are on a flat plane, not a sphere. ¬†I cannot fathom how anybody would buy into the theory. ¬†I think some of these videos, papers, etc, are merely a challenge to produce a working argument, or perhaps a lesson for debate class…

    1. TomPayton How do you explain that gravity hold everything to the earth, including the oceans, but magically has no effect on an aircraft that is flying.¬† A helicopter that hovers stays stationary because of gravity, but if the helicopter is flying with the rotation of the earth gravity has no effect ‘pushing it along’ and a helicopter flying against the rotation isn’t hindered by gravity.

      ‘THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS’ is not a logical debunking.¬† We know what we actually believe.

      I know it’s hard for you to believe that the gov’t lies, because they never lie about anything else.¬† And, it is NASA which relies on ‘Artist rendtions’.¬† Truth seekers can never get away with the things people like you allow your idols to get away with.¬† There are numerous real world examples people seeing objects well beyond what a curve would allow.¬† Why don’t you ask NASA for a photograph of the earth from Hubble?¬† All they have are computer generated images, so don’t hold you’re breath.¬† They say simple photograph isn’t possible.¬† Do you believe that?¬†¬†

      You’ve obviously done SOME reading on the subject.¬† I suggest you try understanding what you are reading before you comment.¬† It also would be prudent to start trusting normal people who are just trying to find the truth of things, and stop worshipping your false idols who have a LONG, LONG, LONG, VERY LONG HISTORY OF LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

      1. owenredeyedsquid

        coz3001 TomPayton gravity holds stuff down unless it uses force to move up you outdid

    2. maulotaur

      TomPayton I cannot fathom how anybody would buy into the fake moon landings and space “missions” (cover-up operations) after actually looking at all of the evidence.¬† You think you can get into space just because you saw some pictures of government agents doing it while they spread their little globes everywhere for years… ridiculous.

      1. maulotaur¬†TomPayton If you would like to find out for yourself if it’s flat or round, book a private jet and head straight for Antarctica. You will either A. Be shot down or B. Discover a whole new uncharted land like Admiral Bird. Now seriously, which one do you think will come first? Remember there is a thing called the Antarctic Treaty. Ask yourself, why?

    3. TomPayton I’ve watched a few of these flat earth videos. They are painful to watch. In the last one I watched there was some guy trying to argue against the Earth being a sphere because of the rotational direction of a storm just off the coast of China, which he states as being in the Southern hemisphere. You can’t argue with stupid like that.

      1. slymonster¬†TomPayton Thanks, I’m glad somebody besides me believes this “big lie”. ¬†lol. ¬†I don’t know why I allow myself to get sucked in to such a ridiculous debate! ¬†I honestly thought there might be a better argument that I just wasn’t seeing.

  28. You ignore the fact that things are commonly seen well beyond what would be possible on a earth with a curvature that can be simply calculated (miles squared times 8 inches) easily calculates how far below the observation point any object should be.  Funny how you never mention that, and that calculation works no matter how HIGH you are.
    NASA has NEVER taken a photograph of the earth, only composite images, also known as CGI so out goes point number 10.¬† Flat earth models assume a stationary plain and gravity does not exist, your own gravity model would have a person weighing less the further they get from the center of gravity which doesn’t happen there goest point number 9.¬† You assume man landed on the moon, but that ignores the numerous other examples of NASA fraud having to do with bubbles in space which clearly prove their actually in a giant pool.¬†¬†

    Its an easily provable fact that objects can be seen and photographed from distances that would be impossible if the earth were round.

    It is also a fact that NASA has never taken a non-computer generated image of the earth, just ask ’em.¬† They say it’s not possible.¬† Aren’t you even curious why they’ve NEVER turned about the Hubble Telescope and took a simple photograph of earth?¬† If you’re not then you’re a shill, and no wonder you lie.

    1. NateBalser

      coz3001 The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.

  29. Forget the drawings.¬† Forget the NASA CGI’s.¬† Forget pretending your a scientist or math wiz. Forget long distance pictures of ships on the ocean.¬† AND, just go photograph a CURVE.
    2 people, each 6 feet tall, only 3 miles away from each other should not be able to see each other.¬† Because the curvature would place each 72 inches below the other, and their eyes would be only about 68 inches off the ground.¬† Use a telescope, binoculars, or a laser pointer, it doesn’t matter, the curvature will completely block the line of sight, right?¬† Prove it.

    Except you can’t because there is no curve.

    Try to photograph the curve, in simple easy to do experiment.¬† It can’t be done.

    1. coz3001 If it is that easy, why is there no photographic evidence that the Earth is a flat disc?
      Rule 101 of Photography, in order to take a picture of something very large you need to get a long way from it. The hubble telescope (for example) is in low Earth orbit, which really isn’t very far away on the scale of things.
      Fortunately for the millions of people whose jobs rely on the Earth being a spinning globe the assumptions and science that flat earthers use is laughably poor.

      1. slymonster¬†coz3001 Look up the Old Bedford Canal experiment in Cambridge, England. Pretty much disproves the globe. The reason there’s no picture proof of a flat disc is because like you stated, you have to be very far away. Since NASA has never been higher than low Earth orbit, the globe pics have been faked. According to Neil Tyson DiGrassi, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Pretty much tells you that either he or NASA is lying. All NASA’s pics of the Earth are round.

        1. Reelin68 slymonster coz3001
          Okay, it’s not a perfect sphere. But how do you describe it to kids? In physics it is sometimes necessary to simplify things so that it is easier to teach. This is no way disproves the globe theory. ¬†The¬†oblate spheroid that you speak of is very nearly a sphere. If you would describe a gold ball, baseball or tennis ball as a sphere then you are making the exact same ‘simplification’ that scientists and teachers make when describing the Earth as a globe or a sphere.

          I have looked up the Old Bedford Canal experiment. All recent efforts to reproduce the results that ‘proved’ the Earth to be flat have in actuality supported the globe theory.

          Cherry picking results proves nothing.

    2. coz3001
      You realize that the earth is uneven right? Like, it has hills, and even you must know this. You can watch someone disappear over the horizon only a hundred feet away if you’ve got a hill there. And if they are in a valley? You go the other way.
      That’s why these equations are approximations, which work well for large distances and break down to local influences over small ones. You’re following me, right?
      Here’s a video showing a curvature (over 90.8 miles) of about 5,500 feet. This would simply NOT happen on a flat earth.

  30. TomPayton

    I don’t have time at the moment for a long retort, but I do have a question. ¬†What is the reason that scientists, astronomers, governments, NASA, and so many other groups or persons have lied about the Earth being a sphere? ¬†Why are they keeping the truth of a flat Earth from the masses? ¬†By the way, I do NOT trust or believe everything from NASA, they continually lie about a lot of things, there is no doubt. ¬†I do however, believe we went to the Moon. ¬†I mean, I have been less than honest before, that doesn’t mean that absolutely everything that comes out of my mouth is a lie.

    1. TomPayton there’s a few theories as the the “why” ; the ones that are ¬†most feasible to me is either ‘knowledge” or “land” – knowledge about humanity, our history — anything like. ¬†The other argument is land; the idea that they allow us to only learn and observe what they want us to; image if there were more land or resources beyond the earth globe they show us?

    2. TomPayton¬† I wrote a comment to you above, that explains my theory.. but in short, I honestly believe without a shadow of a doubt that ‘The Illuminati’ still exists within the upper degrees of ‘Freemasonry’ and have done everything in their power to hide God, and turn people away from Christianity.. even if you don’t believe in Christianity, just imagine for a minute that it’s right.. and throughout history it’s recorded that the Bavarian Illuminati¬†had a very tumultuous relationship with¬†Christianity. So let’s say the Illuminati wanted to destroy Christianity, How could you turn an entire world of people away from that?.. one way, you could develop scientific theories that disprove everything in the Bible, and push them as mainstream knowledge (Evolution, Round Earth).. make everybody believe that God must not be true because we’ve spent our lives learning that the Bible is scientifically false.. Since rediscovering my faith, people have asked me, what proof have you personally seen that God exists? My answer is more proof than I’ve ever seen that Evolution is real.. and come to think of it, I’ve never been to space and looked back to see that the Earth is a Sphere

      1. ChrisToulan¬†TomPayton You may want to believe that the ‘globers’ are trying to disprove the bible. But in actual fact, the bible does NOT teach that the Earth is flat. The idea that it does is an urban myth. If you studied the bible properly you would know this:
        The above link may go some way to helping explain.

  31. Ask the liars why they lie.¬† NASA’s origins are NAZI so that’s enough to question everything about that great American institution.¬† Compartmentalization, big salaries, threat of 20 year prison terms, there are all kinds of reason that people at the top lie or go along with a lie.¬† And yes, if you’ve been caught lying enough times, then a logical assumption for an honest person to make is that you’re lying all the time.
    Photograph the curve, and post the photo.
    Ever hear of the Salt Flats in Utah?¬† You can see from one end to the other and that 12 miles, each end should be 1152 miles below the other, but it’s not, it’s flat, no curvature whatsoever.
    Forget trusting some agency and look for yourself.¬† It’s an incredible thought, but if you can find a curve then it’s just not round.¬† The curve should be obvious everywhere you look if it’s there, and based on the numbers they’ve given us it can be calculated.¬† Where is it?¬† The only place there is a curve is in computer generated images provided to us by a gov’t agency founded by Nazi’s. ¬†
    But, the flat earth is right out your window and easily seen so.  Not to mention thousands of photographs online of things taken from impossible distances if the earth had a curve.  
    This is one of those moment when a person must choose to either accept the evidence before their eyes, or continue to be comforted by the lie the gov’t that raised you has told you.

    99.9% are not strong enough to face the truth and take the Blue pill and live a life of delusion.  I feel no comfort in being part of the willfully and blissfully ignorant majority.

  32. Ask the liars why they lie.¬† NASA’s origins are NAZI so that’s enough
    to question everything about that great American institution. 
    Compartmentalization, big salaries, threat of 20 year prison terms,
    there are all kinds of reason that people at the top lie or go along
    with a lie.¬† And yes, if you’ve been caught lying enough times, then a
    logical assumption for an honest person to make is that you’re lying all
    the time.
    Photograph the curve, and post the photo.
    hear of the Salt Flats in Utah?  You can see from one end to the other
    and that 12 miles, each end should be 1152 miles below the other, but
    it’s not, it’s flat, no curvature whatsoever.
    trusting some agency and look for yourself.¬† It’s an incredible thought,
    but if you can find a curve then it’s just not round.¬† The curve should
    be obvious everywhere you look if it’s there, and based on the numbers
    they’ve given us it can be calculated.¬† Where is it?¬† The only place
    there is a curve is in computer generated images provided to us by a
    gov’t agency founded by Nazi’s. ¬†
    But, the flat earth is
    right out your window and easily seen so.  Not to mention thousands of
    photographs online of things taken from impossible distances if the
    earth had a curve.  
    This is one of those moment when a
    person must choose to either accept the evidence before their eyes, or
    continue to be comforted by the lie the gov’t that raised you has told
    99.9% are not strong enough to face the truth
    and take the Blue pill and live a life of delusion.  I feel no comfort
    in being part of the willfully and blissfully ignorant majority.

    1. JoeBlythe

      coz3001 Have you ever been on an airplane or climbed a small mountain (doesn’t even have to be that high, just a few hundred feet)? The proof is in the pudding. The Earth is indeed a sphere. You can see the massive curve on the horizon. Sure, there may be places on earth that are flatter than others, but our Earth is A LOT bigger than 12 miles, and it all adds up to one big spherical shape. Have you ever taken science classes or read a science book? Physics? Anything? I mean, all the indisputable proof above and you still believe the Earth is flat?! I once took a picture from the top of Mount McKay in Thunder Bay Ontario. It shows the curve. I will try to find it and post it.

      1. vanessazephyr

        No sorry. Youre hallucinating. My boyfriend has pictures hundreds of feet in the air. He used to climb and fix cellnphone towers. No curve. Even without the pics its obvious. There is no curvature. And this person who wrote this crap is just regurgitating NAZI NASA bull. I lived in miami florida and moved up north… The ships dont come from a curve. You can actually see a ship full on from about 30 miles away with binoculars. They just get smaller. You look at the horizon on a setting sun and take out binoculars and it wont look like its setting. And the stick experiment. Really??? Lmfao just look an ancient sundials that are still accurate, the north pole is fixed, and the constellations never get mixed up.
        If we are trut hurling through space around the sun, and the sun around the galaxy at billions of mph then there would be change. And so sorry but you cant deny the laws of gravity and centrifugal force to fit your argument. You cannot explain the gravitron ride on a spinning earth. The atmosphere does not spin with the earth at 1500mph. This is ridiculous.

        1. TomPayton

          vanessazephyr I just want to know WHY the big lie?  WHY are we being told the Earth is round, everything is moving, spinning and revolving, gravity, and all the rest.  I understand the reasons WHY NASA would lie about the Moon Landings, but cannot understand WHY they and many scientists and scholars through out history would engage in such a super-lie.

          1. vanessazephyr

            That’s actually easier to explain. There ar endless reasons. They want us to be powerless. We manifest our reality and they want to suppress us of that. These scholars and rocket scientists are nazis. Thats it. There is no more or less “experts”. They are all regurgitating the same thing. Its half truths thats poisoning this world. They had to lie about the moon landings. And when they found out about the dome supposedly they sent a crapload of nukes into the sky. They opened a “window” to heaven and apparently the rift is a crack in it. Im on the fence with a lot of this. Im still processing everythig to find out whats really going on. I believe they are planningn some kind of invasion type thing and making it look like “aliens”. Its problem reaction solution to the new world order. Now there are a lot more reasons and you have to know the human power to truly understand. Theyve been suppressing us for too long with religion and diseases and we constantly give away our power. Maybe this is a machine and we are the gears. We are biolgical robots in a way but cannot be controlled unless we give them permission. We all fund our own deaths. I believe in other dimensions and think that we are literally in some sort of machine… Think about it, the “invaders” were here first and created this system after destroying whatever other life was here before. Maybe the native teachings are literal? Now if you create a world type system, wouldnt it be plausible that everything would be made to their liking? Fbi protocol, private banksters, mortgages and stock markets etc. It all favors them. So for them to create nasa out of thin air and higher guppies who are trained to be compartmentalized then its safe to assume a lot of them dont know what theyre doing…

          2. ransomovitch

            vanessazephyr hello vannessa well done, ypuve started a journey that will have you realise we are created by an amazing God

          3. TomPayton¬†vanessazephyr dont forget – not “EVERYTHING” is moving or spinning; the moon actually doesn’t spin at all.

          4. TomPayton

            sprvlln TomPayton vanessazephyr Yes it does.  The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation.

          5. ransomovitch

            TomPayton sprvlln vanessazephyr if teh moon spins tom why has the whole world only ever seen one face of the moon?

          6. DouglasofAvalon

            sprvlln¬†TomPayton¬†vanessazephyr That’s right…it’s nothing but a mixture of dense gas…and it’s often transclucent if you watch close enough during the first or last phase phase of the lunar cycle. You do need a good telescope or large set of binoculars.

          7. DouglasofAvalon

            TomPayton¬†vanessazephyr Because if you have no clue what the truth is, you have no idea what you are doing. It’s mind control. Have we EVER seen pictures of a fully mapped antarctica on google earth? hmmmm, nope. ¬†Why? Because the government’s of the world and NATO, UN and the like don’t want you to know what is there. ¬†The Antarctic circle is indeed a circular body of ice that is about 100 miles wide according to older maps. ¬†Let’s see some aerial photos of the Antarctic…oh, there are none. ¬†Are you kidding me??? ¬†That makes zero sense. Just about as much sense as to why there are only 2 photos of the earth taken from space and they are both over 40 years old and taken on the alleged Apollo missions.

            Houston, we have a problem. ¬†And btw way, there are way more lies you don’t even know about yet. ¬†The entire world of commerce is fiction as well and the “currency” used by the banks as money is nothing mre than fancy Monopoly money. ¬†You are living in a matrix and simply can’t see beyond what your mind has perceived as true. ¬†We atre literally surrounded by lies and the bottom line is that it keeps you enslaved. The easiest way to enslave a population is to make them “believe” they are free.

          8. DouglasofAvalon¬†TomPayton¬†vanessazephyr Oh I have a clue. ¬†I agree with your Monopoly money idea, and fully agree with “The easiest way to enslave a population is to make them “believe” they are free.”. ¬†I know there are MANY lies we ALL are being told. I am still researching some of this other stuff; but you can’t blame me for being skeptical of a Flat Earth. ¬†Most of these Flat Earther’s wanna get all upset and start name calling and belittling, which totally takes away from even wanting to research. ¬†Keep the posts coming!

          9. ChrisToulan

            TomPayton I’m still skeptical as well.. but doing some research into the Masons/Illuminati, things do add up in a very different manor.. I don’t know how you identify Religiously/Spiritually.. but after growing up Catholic, I spent most of my life Atheist and have recently been rediscovering my faith in Christianity.. One reason is it seems like the “Book of Revelation” is currently coming true, the other is the information I have recently read about these two interwoven secret societies.. Much of what is available about the Free Masons and Illuminati in modern time seems to relate to members that are Global Bankers and Political Figures, along with some older Public Figures in Media.Entertainment.. But researching the history of these groups and I discover that the original members of the Masons/Illuminati were also many early Scientists, like Galileo, even Darwin had connections.. Many other people that formed the foundation of EVERYTHING our current science is based on.. These men were quoted as being interested in “being enlightened/illuminated”.. The other interesting thing about the Illuminati/Masons is that they (at least symbolically) have had this unbelievable infatuation with representations of Apollo who in Greek/Roman mythology; along with being the God of music, was also the “bringer of light”.. just like RA the Sun God in Egyptian Mythology (represented by the pyramid and all seeing illuminated eye that you always see).. also much like Lucifer, the “Angel of music and bringer of light”, who was a fallen Angel in Christianity, who was also known as our Biblical Satan/The Devil.. The fact that the Illuminati/Masons had (at least symbolically) this infatuation with “Lucifer” and also had a tumultuous relationship with Christianity.. leaves the door open for me to look into these preconceived foundation for which our science is based on and wonder if The Illuminati really has survived this long.. and if from the shadows, they really have been influencing been influencing everything from our Government, to our Entertainment, to the science we’ve spent our lives learning, in their battle against Christianity.. As strange as it sounds, from what I’ve researched about “the Illuminati”, they seem like and equal and exact opposite to Christianity.. from their beliefs, to the symbols they choose to represent them.. I’m not saying that they worship Satan, but it seems that they have paid him some serious tribute throughout history

        2. vanessazephyr¬†¬† ¬†The earth rotates at 0.0007rpm… ¬† Centrifugal force at such slow speed is negligible.
          I know the earth is an approximate sphere rotating at this speed from my own observations..  Not because scientists told me so.

      2. JoeBlythe¬†coz3001 which drugs you took ? ūüôā
        there is no curve ūüėÄ

      3. DouglasofAvalon

        JoeBlythe¬†coz3001 ¬†The ONLY way a photo of the horizon will “exhibit” a curve is by using a fisheye lens. ¬†There is NO curvature visible even from over 70 miles up and an amateur rocketeer set a world record proving that as fact. You globers are gonna lose this one hands down. Science books are literally full of bullshit which is why you want to think you know the earth is a globe. ¬†It’s nice to think of it that way but your “sphere” of influence diminished rapidly when you mentioned something about science classes….

    2. owenredeyedsquid

      coz3001 If the earth is flat than how did freanad magenline go to ashia

  33. maulotaur

    Notice how they start with false assumptions like saying that people have known it is round for thousands of years (lies), setting up the rest of the deception.

    1. AndrewMorgan3

      maulotaur Actually, they have know for thousands of years. The book of Isaiah, written 700 years before Christ, talks about the circle of the earth.

    2. Proving Science

      maulotaur people have always know the earth is round. A spinning sphere travelling through 
      outer space around the sun is something totally different and asking Nasa to prove the impossible is moronic. They have already so many

  34. the only thing i would like to say about the flat earth, is i never seen a video of the earth rotating with independent cloud movement. i guess NASA feel that storm never move they just stay with the land mass.

    1. atedude That is because you have never seen a video of the earth rotating – doesn’t exit.

  35. Proving Science

    (2) That’s a great idea with the ships and the horizon. School kids can watch ships disappear into the horizon in front of the superior mirage that is the Chicago Skyline. CHEERS

  36. I would totally be sold if they could create an earth model in a closed environment where water is held on a sphere.

    1. Proving Science

      sprvlln that is something people who believe in the sphere model don’t take ino account. The amount of water the spinning sphere is holding.

  37. vanessazephyr

    Ive said all i need to. You are obviously an insider. If not go resesrch and question like all of us are doing. Instead of patronizing and twistingg semantics even further.

  38. jacqueszupp

    No round earther has answered the question about the strange routes planes take in the southern hemisphere on planefinder, totally going out of their way but on a flat earth model the rotes they take are direct and make sense. They can not answer why planes disappear or reappear in this area too, like they are hiding their tracks.

    1. jacqueszupp They can’t answer a lot of things, not just planes.¬† The information claimed is based on false assumptions, fake pictures and myths that do not correspond with real-world test results while ignoring many other possible explanations.¬† The whole bottom half of the article about space is no way for anyone to know anything – pictures and claims issued by a government operation…

    2. jacqueszupp Planes disappear and reappear in that area because of a lack of radar which are used to track planes.  Many planes tend to take indirect routes over oceans to stay close to land in case there is an issue with the plane.
      There you go. Answered.

      1. slymonster jacqueszupp xDDDDDDDDDDDDDD srsly you are dumb
        just dumb
        lack of radar¬† :D:D:D:D:D:D:D wtf are you dreaming about ? ūüėÄ omfg

        1. DavidKo1 slymonster jacqueszupp Where the hell do you think they are going to put  the radar dishes where there is no land? You do understand how radar works right? I mean seriously? 
          I find your insult to be more ridiculous than your lack of scientific knowledge.

  39. owenredeyedsquid

    Every one who thinks the earth is flat soon some company will let you go to space in a weather balloon. If you go on it you will have proof the earth is round.

  40. #4 is one of the dumbest things i ever heard and back to this i think all the statistics and facts are just fucking ridicoulus and not well researched. it just made me laugh that a person thinks shadows must be euqal only cause earth is flat, it relates on the light source and where it is. just a dumb fact like this article. SHOW ME 1 HORIZON , I DONT CARE HOW HIGH IN SPACE OR DEEP IN EARTH OR WHERE EVER YOU ARE , THAT IS CURVED. SHOW IT TO ME PLEASE….
    and please dont show me any NASA or GOVERMENT pictures. failers

    1. DavidKo1
      You know SpaceX is a private company, right? Watch one of their launch videos if you don’t trust “teh government”
      Also, weather balloons get pretty high too. The attached picture is one taken from the Iowa high altitude balloon project.

        1. ransomovitch DavidKo1
          He asked for a picture of a curved horizon, so I sent him one.

        2. ransomovitch

          At any one 24 hr period over earth, there are approximately 100,000 planes flying across the ‘globe’ (haha) leaving their condensation trails as they pass by, and so Mr dwarfdeaths, you tell us all what’s missing from this little cgi and all other earth pics please. Whoops, but Im sure you’ll have an answer.

          1. ransomovitch
            By CGI I’m assuming you’re talking about the images of earth from space. As for what’s missing, I’m assuming you’re talking about the contrails.
            Short answer: contrails are visible from space, but are not particularly easy to see unless you use the right imaging techniques. After being made, contrails quickly diffuse and look very much like regular clouds (they are clouds, after all) and become almost indistinguishable.
            The picture above, specifically, was taken from a (relatively) very low altitude (balloon) above rural Iowa with a small area visible that isn’t obstructed by regular clouds.
            See the attached picture for an idea of how difficult it is to distinguish contrails from other clouds by eye.

        1. DouglasofAvalon Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1
          This image is not from NASA at all. I find it so odd that most of the flat-earthers think NASA has some sort of monopoly on space access. Granted, they are one of the largest and best funded – hence how they have so much data – and they were also one of the pioneers in space travel, but there are lots of countries (and now corporations) with access to space.

          1. DouglasofAvalon

            Dwarfdeaths DouglasofAvalon DavidKo1 wiki is just that and btw, NASA = Natiponal Acadmy of Space Actors.  Globularheaders have nothing to stand on as all science is bs and now everyone (except you of course) knows this.  No offense, there is no argument anymore.

          2. DouglasofAvalon Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1
            If you want to convince people that “all science is BS,” you will have to provide evidence.
            Oh wait, evidence is how science works.
            BTW, how in the world do you think cell phones work? They are based on electromagnetism, and are just one of an innumerable number of technologies based on science.

          3. DouglasofAvalon

            Dwarfdeaths¬†DouglasofAvalon¬†DavidKo1 Science IS bullshit…so what you are saying then is to prove something is bullshit with more bullshit. ¬†That’s bullshit….and this whole thing is bullshit. Stupid. ¬†Senseless. Mindless. It does not matter, everyone already KNOWS the entire world is bullshit. I am a living man. I can’t live in the realm of bullshit you live in. Science IS bullshit…and yse, I repeated that because it truly is. You see, nothing matters…no thing.

          4. DouglasofAvalon Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1
            Wait, so let me get this straight – for the record.
            You think using evidence to support your positions is bullshit?
            Okay, be my guest, but no way in hell you’re convincing me without evidence.

          5. Dwarfdeaths DouglasofAvalon DavidKo1
            It confuses me why someone, such as DouglasofAvalon, would remotely think that all science is bullshit while using a method of communication that relies so heavily on so much proven science.

          6. slymonster¬†Sly, an analogy is in order. You are a professional bowler, for argument sake. You have been challenged by Douglas to a match. Douglas is an amateur, but he says he is going to beat you — crush you. You accept the match and you bowl a respectable 249. Your opponent never picks up a bowling ball. Instead he carries a badminton shuttlecock around the bowling alley placing it on the heads of nearby persons giving him self 10 points each time. He score an amazing 1,360. He wins — at least in the world between his ears. You attempt to argue that he was not bowling. He, of course, asks you to prove that he is not bowling. He’s brought along some friends who say that indeed, what he is doing is bowling. ¬†

            This  guy is right out of the Monty Python argument clinic sketch. He just contradicts, never provides a true argument.  Why are any of you wasting your time? If this guy walked into a lecture on discussing gaussian distribution at nearby MIT and babbled on like this he would be removed, or would leave on his own after being ridiculed. Why are his posts not deleted? It does science a disservice to have a comment section next to a thoughtful article allowing folks to think there is another side to the argument. There is no argument. There is no other side.

          7. slymonster¬†I imagine at one point he has relied upon medical science to continue his well-being. MRIs and catscan machine grow on trees. We don’t know how they work, they just do.

    2. DavidKo1 There is no way to prove the Earth is not flat to you. I am making a presumption that you are illiterate in mathematics and scientific methods in general. Simply contradicting the facts is fine. You are free to believe whatever you like. However, if you want to convince others of what you believe, you are clearly do not have the tools. 

      Now, I want everyone to know that you have a large plate of uneaten spaghetti on your ping pong table. Prove me wrong — and don’t try to show me CGI pictures of your ping pong table with the uneaten plate of spaghetti removed. I am not going to fall for that.

  41. same like #5…. wtf is if i look at a flat table at its “level” i can see just a little part of the table if i go up it will expand. SRSLY ūüėÄ who wrote this shit ūüėÄ

    1. DavidKo1
      It’s saying you can literally see things when you go up that you couldn’t see from the ground. they even drew pictures.

  42. A disc shaped earth would not be plausible with what we know about gravity.

  43. Ok if the earth is flat
    1. How come we see sunrises and sunsets?
    2. We have so much technology why nobody from the flat earth society didn’t take a plane or a boat to show us the end of the flat earth
    3. How come you can see satellites orbiting the earth
    4. What keeps your flat earth together
    5. Why is hotter at Equator than Tropics
    6. How do you explain the seasons
    7. If the earth is flat and more than 70 % is water when you have a tsunami we should tip over?

  44. Jason Clark

    Who can believe anything put out by the government controlled nasa program that’s like a black hole of money when I / the moon landings has been proven fake 2/ you can see bubbles on most of their space walks 3/ they have never shown us a real picture of earth from space never it’s always the same cgi bull everytime and I can keep going but you get my point

    1. Jason Clark

      NASA doesn’t have a monopoly on all knowledge pertaining to the shape of the earth. They’re just well-known for being one of the first two entities for successfully reach space and conducting a huge amount of research about our planet.

      If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
      1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
      2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
      3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
      This is how science works Рthe model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites, among a myriad of other things.
      If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.

    2. Jason Clark
      1/ The moon landings have never been proven fake. It’s just the same regurgitated ‘bad science’ spouted by the same old conspiracy idiots.¬†
      2/ Please point me in the direction of some of these videos. Official ones, not ones that could have been edited afterwards.
      3/ We do have real pictures of the Earth from space. Yes, they use the same old pictures because we just haven’t been that far from Earth since the Apollo missions to be able to get new pictures. You get how big the Earth is and how relatively close even the furthest satellites are right. Photography 101. If you want to take a photo of something very large, you have to back away a long way.

  45. Granted, it’s a lot to take in. To even accept the possibility that they’ve been lying to us our whole lives is daunting. But to just regurgitate what NASA has taught is is relying on what the world says. Remember, were not supposed to be of the world.

    1. Missemy
      NASA doesn’t have a monopoly on all knowledge pertaining to the shape of the earth. They’re just well-known for being one of the first two entities for successfully reach space and conducting a huge amount of research about our planet.
      To re-paste my first post:

      If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
      1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
      2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
      3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
      This is how science works Рthe model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites, among a myriad of other things.
      If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.

  46. A lot of this is in contention in recent years… things we’ve just accepted and not gone out to test for ourselves. And I really can’t trust anything nasa gives us these days. They’ve proven to be habitual and chronic liars. And there’s too much for them to lose if it was proven the earth is flat. All of your points have a counter-argument and you assume that only your globe earth model can account for phenomenon such as time zones and different shadows.

    It’s a lot to take in… it’s initially impossible to think of another way the world could work.. it’s been beaten into us so hard.. I came here hoping to finally see something that would disprove the flat earth, but you have disappointed me with your lack of research and your lackadaisical attitude. You, sir, have wasted everyone’s time with information questioners have seen a thousand times over before even wondering. Before you assume that we’re only questioning because we’re ignorant buffoons, take the time to do some research you self-absorbed douche bag.

    1. sandstroma
      “They’ve proven to be habitual and chronic liars.”
      Citation please.
      I will copy and paste directly from my first post in response to yours:

      If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
      1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
      2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
      3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
      This is how science works Рthe model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites.
      If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.

      1. ransomovitch

        If you havent been given enough clues from reading these posts to begin your OWN journey, then you are merely a postulating time waster. The fact the spherical maths doesn’t stack up in front of our own eyes, the fact the only reliable source for imaging of a round earth is occult-rooted nasa with a history of easily-proven image fakery, the raft you are demanding in such a lofty, holier than thou – ‘oh you stupid fat-earthers’ – type attitude, these are all pointers to you being nowt more than an ill-informed, orthodox-enmeshed armchair critic. Anybody who bows to your wishes and supplies you with references instead of encouraging you out if your slothful, open-beaked, demanding stance in these matters is doing themselves and you a grand disservice. But here are just two clues to start with, do the curvature trig, visit your nearest vast expanse of water orf open flat plain (there is no difference) take out a telescope and see what greets your eye. Secondly, once more I ask you, do you believe NASA when they say they accidentally taped over the ‘greatest achievement of mankind’?

      2. ransomovitch

        If you havent been given enough clues from reading these posts to begin your OWN journey, then you are merely a postulating time waster. The fact the spherical maths doesn’t stack up in front of our own eyes, the fact the only reliable source for imaging of a round earth is occult-rooted nasa with a history of easily-proven image fakery, the fact you are demanding in such a lofty, holier than thou – ‘oh you stupid fat-earthers’ – type attitude, these are all pointers to you being nowt more than an ill-informed, orthodox-enmeshed armchair critic. Anybody who bows to your wishes and supplies you with references instead of encouraging you out of your slothful, open-beaked, demanding stance in these matters is doing themselves and you a grand disservice. But here are just two clues to start with, do the curvature trig (distance in miles x distance in miles x 8 divided by 12 = feet drop ) visit your nearest vast expanse of still flat water or open flat plain (there is no difference) take out a telescope focus on whatever far off object (apparently over the horizon to the naked eye) and see what greets you in your eye piece. Secondly, once more I ask you, do you believe NASA when they say they accidentally taped over the ‘greatest achievement of mankind’? If you say yes I’m sorry but you are a gullible fool. If you say no, your journey has begun.

        1. ransomovitch
          You ironically respond to my post asking for evidence by making more assertions without providing evidence. I will ignore all of the insults – they are the time-wasters.
          I like that you did propose an experiment, and then proceed to not say anything about the results. “See what greets your eye.” Okay.¬†
          90.8×90.8×8/12 = ~5500 ft.¬†
          The mountain is ~4800′ higher than where the camera is, and the “level” plane is slightly above the mountain, so I’d say that just about nails it.
          Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1CJZx4llto
          Finally, NASA:
          The answer to your question has nothing to do with whether the earth is round. I also like the options you give me:
          “If you agree with me, you’re on your way, but if you disagree with me you’re a gullible fool.”
          Honestly, it would be easier to land on the moon than to keep a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people for half a century under wraps. And, perhaps the more salient point: NASA is not (remotely) the only space agency to go conduct space missions. There are over 50 space agencies, and we (the world) have launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. That’s a conspiracy on the scale of the Truman show. So which is more likely, do you think? That we have been to space, using the technology that we have had for decades, or that you are on the Truman show?

          1. ransomovitch

            Point1 Mr youtube regurgitator. Take your own telescope to your own chosen flat spot and from ground level, take out your scope, put it to your eye (you know, that amazing visual organ attached to your BRAIN) and look at something 20 miles away ….. And gues what? Whilst standing at approximately ground level, you will not see the curvature or drop which should, at 20 miles equate to an approximate 22 feet . And secondly,now do me a favour, I’ve answered one of your questions, now you answer me one of mine. If you don’t answer, I shall not bother replying to any more of your posts. Do you believe NASA when they say they have mislaid or taped over the most historic space mission in the history of mankind? YES? OR NO? Simple reply please

          2. ransomovitch
            1) I have, Mr. assumptionator. What I’ve not done is make a nice recording of it, and seeing as I’m pretty busy most of the time, I use links to videos of people who’ve done the extra work.
            2) My answer: yes, I believe they taped over their recordings. Now answer my question: are you on the Truman show?

          3. ransomovitch

            Attention all readers, in Mr dwarfdeaths previous answer, it is evident he can’t be arsed to carry out his own research into this most important topic and secondly, he believes nasa accidentally taped over the original moon landings. I am not usually given to mean spiritedness but Mr dwarfdeaths has brought out the angry in me. For me, he represents the typical armchair critic who does nil research of his own, believes all he is shown and told by the God in the corner (tv) and if he does pick pick a slight whiff of double dealings will steadfastly refuse to allow his brain to take him where he philosophically and spiritually does dare to go. For these reasons Mr dwarfdeaths, you get the reality you desrve.

          4. ransomovitch
            I deeply apologize for not having recorded my personal experiments in advance with the knowledge that you would accuse me of not having done them. Interestingly, you didn’t respond to the video that I sent you, nor did you answer my question regarding whether you believe that¬†all 50 space agencies, all footage and images, and all 6,600+ satellites launched to date, from around the world, are a conspiracy.

          5. ransomovitch

            Attention all readers, in Mr dwarfdeath’s previous answer, it is evident he can’t be arsed to carry out his own research into this most important topic and secondly, he Actually comes out in public and admits he believes nasa accidentally taped over the original moon landing recordings. I am not usually given to mean spiritedness but Mr dwarfdeaths has brought out the angry in me. To me, he represents the typical armchair critic who does nil research of his own, believes all he is shown and told by his god in the corner (his tv) and even if he does pick up a slight whiff of double dealings being beamed out at him by his god, he will still steadfastly refuse to allow his brain to take him where he philosophically and spiritually does dare to go. For these reasons Mr dwarfdeaths, you get the reality you desrve. If you hadn’t started off so mocking, I promise you ai would not have been so mocking myself.but sometimes you crowd deserve to be treated the way you treat others.

          6. ransomovitch

            If you believe NASA indeed tape over the moon landing footage, you do not deserve any more time being wasted upon you. However, fyi, I have bought a £2000 camera and scope and I will be putting up my own high quality channel very soon. I will send you the link when it is done.

          7. ransomovitch
            I look forward to seeing what you produce with your own equipment.
            I’m a bit confused by your repeated assertion that I’ve not done these experiments when I have outright stated that I have.
            Also, simply asserting how ridiculous it is to believe that NASA recorded over their moon landing tapes is really unproductive and unnecessary. The tapes were only ever recorded in case the live broadcast failed – it didn’t, and it was recorded in a myriad of other places. It was undoubtedly of a higher quality, and it is a regrettable in hindsight that they recorded over them, but I can easily conceive of it happening in the early 1980s.
            Speaking of unnecessary and unproductive, you really could lay off the insults and sarcasm a bit – I’ve not been nearly so impolite.
            Finally, I’ll ask one more time (though I will not be awake to see your response tonight), what is your response to Mt. Becker being below the horizon?

          8. Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch
            Sorry to butt in on your little debate.

            You do know that NASA didn’t video record anything don’t you? ¬†They used actual good old fashioned film. Therefore it would be impossible to record over the original footage. IMPOSSIBLE.

          9. slymonster Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch
            They used a film to record the signal being sent from the cameras on the moon. The film itself was on the ground at NASA, not with the mission. It was kept in case the live broadcast failed.
            The live broadcast did not fail, however, so the tapes were not necessary (thought they were probably higher quality), and at some point in the 1980s they got erased and recorded over. Basically, they had exactly the same information as was broadcast live, but did had fewer processing steps before recording.

          10. Dwarfdeaths slymonster ransomovitch
            So they do still have some of the original recordings (more original in fact as they had less processing done to them)? Just not all of them? So the statement that they ‘taped over the original recordings’ made by some people is a little inaccurate.

          11. ransomovitch
            I’m confused. Some flat earthers say that the drop should be about 8 inches per mile while you quote it as being 1.1 feet per mile.
            I am fortunate in that I live on the coast, in the Solent, One of the busiest stretches of water in the world, so can see the drop as ships constantly sail over the horizon.

  47. ransomovitch

    OK globers two simple questions, firstly, do you actually believe nasa lost or taped over the original Apollo 11 moon landing footage – the greatest (hahaha) achievement in aviation history? If you do, you are only lying to yourself. Secondly, why do the ISS astro girls need to perm their hair upwards to make it look like they’re floating in 0 g? I am NOT going to provide the youtube links that show this is easily the case, and do you know why? Because YOU yes YOU readers are responsible for your own journey to truth in this life. It’s not a case of he said, she said, they said. the responsibility for that journey is yours and YOURS alone. If you do undertake this little piece of homework for yourselves, you will start a journey that will take you down a rabbit hole you will eventually thank God HE led you down and out the other side into a freedom you didn’t know existed. Nuff said

    1. ransomovitch
      What do either of these questions have to do with the earth being round?
      If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
      1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
      2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
      3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
      This is how science works Рthe model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites.
      If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.
      It’s a tall order, but as you said, you are responsible for your own journey.

      1. ransomovitch

        No my friend, I’ve done my journey on round earth flat earth, you are just reacting from the hip, you haven’t travelled any distance at all on this road, tha t is so easy to tell, therefore, I am not taking a horse to water just to watch it stand there mock and not drink, this is your journey, I have discharged my duty.

        1. ransomovitch
          You’re free to refuse to support your position – just know that you have no grounds to complain when the rest of society continues to believe that the earth is round. Like I said: science is open to new models, but it’s not going to change unless it’s given evidence.

          1. Dwarfdeaths¬†ransomovitch I’ve never seen a proper mathematical model of flat Earth that can hold up to scientific scrutiny. However, ransomovitch, there is 6′ 5″ tall man dressed as a white bunny in ¬†your garage. I know this. Now disprove me. Don’t try taking pictures and photoshopping out the bunny. You aren’t going to fool me with that. I fell for that once, but I am not going to fall for it twice.

        2. ransomovitch Get a pair of very powerful binoculars and look at the shadows of the hills on the moon. Look at the shapes of the craters go from circles in the center to ellipses on the edges. I think we can agree that it’s round.

    2. ransomovitch
      The original Apollo 11 moon landing footage was taken on good old fashioned film, not a video tape. Therefore it would be impossible to record over.
      Where this idea comes from that NASA ever said this I do not know.

        1. ransomovitch slymonster
          Okay. A quick search and guess what. They didn’t tape over the ‘original’ recordings, and have never said that they did. They think they might have taped over some of a particular type of recording.
          I guess it is this ‘selectiveness’ that allow flat earthers to use poor science to over-complicate something which is actually very simple.

        2. ransomovitch slymonster Get a telescope or binoculars. Take a trip to antartica. There are nice trips available.

        3. ransomovitch¬†slymonster Aren’t ¬†you clever, now for homework I want you to show me how Euler’s method can be used to solve ordinary differential equations. Let me say in advance, you can’t respond with Euler was shill or Euler was lying. Hint, he didn’t work for NASA. He wasn’t even American.

  48. Not a single one of the 10 prove the Earth is round. A sphere can be converted to a Planisphere and equilibrium will occur between heliocentricity and geocentric flat plane. To understand this I urge you to YouTube a video called “Vedic Cosmology – Mysteries of the Sacred Universe.” Let’s break this down, try to keep up:
    #1 The Moon is farther than the Sun we know this because Millisecond Pulsed Ruby Lasers (MIT 1962 7yrs before Apollo Missions) bounced off the Moon reveal it is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm a year. The Sun’s distance is fixed to the Earth. The Moon can orbit above a planisphere just as it can appear to orbit a sphere, this is well documented, viewed from above the ecliptic orbit looks like the Flower of Life. Not proof of a spheroid Earth.
    #2 Ships on the Horizon appear to fall beyond the horizon because of our perspective vision’s “vanishing point,” reflected light from the Sun off the bottom of a ship’s hull falls below the vanishing point making it disappear from the bottom up. But the horizon never passes the bottom of the hull, the ship simply vanishes upward, above the horizon not downward falling below the horizon. This is well understood, get on board. Not proof of a spheroid Earth with curvature.
    #3 Varying Star Constellations are another trick of perspective vision. Whether you are on a rotating sphere with fixed stars around or a flat plane with a dome, planetarium-like, set of stars above that rotate you will experience equilibrium. Or planetariums wouldn’t work as accurately as they do; also the reason stars rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere is the same reason the faces of the moon are opposite in opposite hemispheres, its the direction at which you are viewing the sky above and location on the Earth, like having a different seat in a 25,000 mile wide planetarium and perceiving different rotations. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
    #4 Shadows and Sticks produce equal results on a sphere with a Sun 93,000,000 miles away and a flat plane with a Sun 3,000 miles above that orbits along an ecliptic between the Tropics (exactly like the Moon). When¬†Eratosthenes calculated the¬†circumference¬†of the¬†Earth he simply calculated the orbit of the Sun along it’s ecliptic during a solar day, this is well understood. Not proof of a¬†spherical Earth.
    #5 Seeing farther from higher is another result of perspective vision, when you look at the horizon no matter what height it is always eye level and always perfectly flat because your vision rises the lowest point of vision up to the center of vision (the vanishing point) and the highest point of vision down to the center of vision. Like standing on a railroad tracks and watching the parallel tracks meet at the vanishing point about 3 miles away 6ft above sea level; no matter how high you go you will experience the same phenomenon. Not proof of spherical Earth.

    1. ransomovitch

      Please don’t get the flat earth construction mixed up with Vedic cosmology. This revealing of flat earth construction I these last days. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, One of the Triune Living Glorious Attributes of the God of the Bible, Creator of Heaven and earth. Our flat earth was not made by a committee of gods. There is One True Creator and His Name is Jesus. Revelation makes it clear the dome will split asunder and He will reveal Himself to the whole earth as He brings righteous judgment upon a wicked earth. This flat earth revival is the work of a loving God Who wants all to come to know Him before He returns in Glory. Read what He has to say about NASA in Obadiah v1-4. Get ready people. The days are only going to get darker and more deceptive. But those who put their trust in the Lord of Heaven and earth will not lose their minds in the last days. They will stand firm in the strength of Christ Jesus. Seek Him while He still may be found.

    2. AlexxFresh
      #1, The Moon is further away from the Earth than the Sun?
      I cannot get my head around this one.

      You know this because the Moon is moving away from the Earth by a few cm a year, so must be further away?

      My wife just drove to work. I watched her move away from me at about 30mph before she drove out of sight. Does that mean she was further away from me than the sun?

      Have you ever seen a solar eclipse, where the moon comes between the Sun and Earth? I have. I trust my eyes, I know what I saw. The Moon was closer to us than the Sun.

      1. slymonster
        Believe me I realize how asinine this must sound to you and that’s OK. Have you ever seen a “Selenelion Eclipse?” In Vedic Cosmology the Moon is said to be slightly further than the Sun and does not perform Eclipses. Eclipses are said to be performed by “Rahu” and “Ketu,” celestial bodies that are closer than the Sun. These bodies are said to be 0% reflective and absorb 100% of light. They Eclipse the Sun and the Moon separately and it is a very sacred thing. I realize this proves nothing, but that’s my point exactly: The Moon does not prove a spherical Earth as much as it does not prove Rahu and Ketu exists.

        1. AlexxFresh slymonster 
          A globular earth is proved by pretty much all space travel we do, as all of it involves orbital mechanics.

          1. I urge you to look up the Hemispherium Astrolabe from Ancient India. Also the Antikythera Mechanism from Ancient Greece; Michael T Wright built a replica model and the orbits are synchronistic above a flat planisphere. Next lookup the Surya Siddhanta which translated the Bhagavatam’s detailed descriptions of the planet’s orbits and relative distances in geocentric form; academics used this data to formulate the Heliocentric Model starting in the 12th century and perfected in the 16th. Things can exist outside your realm of thinking. Believe me, I was taught everything you were, I have always been obsessed with cosmology. I just prefer Ancient teachings over modern astronomy after the plethora of information I’ve learned. It’s a personal opinion. But one thing you must remember is the Heliocentric Model is a Theory not scientific fact; just because you were indoctrinated (as all of us were) into believing it’s scientific fact doesn’t mean it is. Please research my above links to lectures by professors and draw your own conclusions about the Model and if you’re scientific and unbiased you will see why people are drawing such outlandish conclusions; I try not to speculate but it still tends to happen.

          2. AlexxFresh As soon as someone utters the phrase, ‘it’s a theory not fact’, it shows shows a very ignorant misunderstanding of science at a very basic level. By uttering this term I find it very hard to believe that you were taught as much as I were, even if you had sat in every class and lecture by my side.
            Besides my learning, I will repeat, I have seen the moon move in front of the sun. That’s just a full stop. I cannot consider any type of postulation that argues that the moon is further away from us than the sun. Millions of people have seen this happen. To suggest otherwise is just ignorant and bizarre when it comes from a group of people who demand photographic proof that the earth is not flat!

            Double standards just start to look like desperation eventually.

          3. slymonster AlexxFresh
            I know just about everything there is to know about modern astronomy. From the Cavendish Experiment to the Redshift from Quasars in nearby Galaxies violating Hubble Law. If you wish to detest my intellect instead of research my claims, this is your initiative and you are entitled to it.

          4. BrianGrubba

            AlexxFresh¬†slymonster When you’re older these conversations are going to be so embarrassing for you.

          5. BrianGrubba AlexxFresh slymonster
            I’m sorry you feel this way. I am always learning, thus I will never be satisfied with my current knowledge at any given time. I can never take a final stance on something because I know any “theory” can be disproved in the future. Furthermore, simply because some facts give weight to one theory does not mean those facts cannot completely destroy that same theory in the future.

          6. BrianGrubba

            AlexxFresh BrianGrubba slymonster I dunno I feel like when thousands of observable experiments have been done for hundreds of years you can kind of rely on the data rather than a slight mental illness (not trying to insult you but paranoia is not a trait of the firm).

            I wouldn’t even be here if this garbage forum software would let me unsubscribe. I’ve unsubscribed 5 times and I still get notifications. So I may as well join in!

          7. slymonster AlexxFresh
            Regarding the phrase “it’s a theory not a fact” you should probably reevaluate modern astronomy: its called theoretical science for a reason.

  49. #6 Ride a plane: if you look at an Azimuthal¬†Equatorial map of the Earth you can see how a plane¬†traveling along the equator due east, using a¬†compass to stay due east keeping north¬†always to the¬†left,¬†will¬†travel¬†in a seemingly¬†straight path but will¬†inevitably arc around¬†the North Pole completing a circumnavigation of the Earth, this is true on a flat plane and a sphere. Most commercial planes fly at a¬†cruising¬†altitude of 35,000ft; if the spherical Earth is 24,901miles in circumference than for every mile the horizon should drop about 8 inches. At 35,000ft it would be too low in altitude to see any curvature of Earth, that would only happen at 80,000ft (Pythagorean Theorem) but if you Youtube videos of independent balloons launched into space (without a fisheye or wide-field lens, no GoPro) the horizon stays flat up to 120,000ft, no ballon or independent rocket can go higher for some reason so we can never see a curvature, is actually proves the Earth is a seemingly infinite plane. The Ancient Vedic Srimad Bhagavatam from India describes the “Bhu-Mandala 4,000,000,000 miles wide as the Earth within a rotating spherical Universe called the Brahmanda. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
    #7 Look at Other Planets, Ancient Vedic Cosmology explains that celestial bodies orbit above the 4,000,000,000 mile wide flat plane Earth in perfect sequence, from above their orbits draw the Flower of Life, as all orbits above a flat plane do. To understand this one must forget what they think they know about Earth and the Universe and imagine the Flat Plane Earth as a divider in the perfect centre of a rotating spherical Universe from edge to edge, like a dime fixed perfectly in the center of a rotating marble. Forget the Theory of Gravity drawing mass toward the core of a rotating sphere, which contradicts centrifugal force, and imagine the rotating Universe with the flat plane Earth centered and apply centrifugal force: all mass would be forced to the edges of the inner wall of the Universe and to both sides of the dividing flat plane Earth (this is how we’re held down to the Earth). According to the Vedas there is 2,000,000,000 miles (25 koti yojanas) between the North Pole and Polaris; centrifugal force within a spherical Universe this large would create a phenomenon at about 1,000,000,000 miles above the North Pole (centre) where forces cannot draw mass toward the edge of the Universe or the side of the dividing flat plane Earth. This creates a section of the Universe where Celestial Bodies can exists: planets dwarf planets, and exoplanets, there is no Solar System in this model. This also implies there is a mirrored flat plane Earth below often referred to as “The Underworld.” Looking at other Planets and applying its characteristics to Earth as a sphere is speculation at best, not proof of a spherical Earth.
    #8 The existence of Time Zones is equal on a sphere with a Sun 93,000,000 miles away and a flat plane with a Sun orbiting 3,000 miles above, I urge you to lookup Gleason’s “The New Standard Map of the World” made in 1892; an Azimuthal Equatorial map that shows time zones along the outer edges of the round, flat map. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
    #9 The Center of Gravity: Gravity is a Theory not scientific fact. The Center of Mass on a flat plane Earth no matter what the size would always be relatively parallel to the flat plane, as in below the flat plane equal across the entire plane. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
    #10 Images from Space are Composites not “Photographs.” Satellites like¬†Hubble doesn’t use color film. In fact, it doesn’t use film at all. Rather, its cameras record light from the universe with special electronic detectors. These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white. For some reason film will not work in space this cannot be¬†proven or¬†disputed as United Nation Countries’ Space Agencies are the only ones who could do such thing. Probability of manipulation of these images are far too high to be¬†considered as proof¬†positive images. Not proof of a spherical Earth.

    I have been trying to prove the Theory of the Heliocentric Model using¬†empirical data and common sense and it just cannot be done. It is far¬†too flawed. I am going to create a¬†Youtube Page and express all of my findings.¬†But I need to do more research. Nothing on this page proves the Earth is¬†spherical shaped or even a Planet for that matter. I don’t expect you to¬†believe any of my¬†beliefs as¬†that would not be¬†scientific. I expect you to be empirical and¬†unbiased,¬†although that is hard in this day in age because we have been completely indoctrinated to¬†believe the Heliocentric Model as¬†scientific fact. Reject this and challenge¬†everything. I’m still seeking the true¬†knowledge of our ancient Universe; it will not be handed to me on a¬†silver platter, I will be fooled by the¬†status quo; but I will look past this and¬†succeed in my findings by devoting my life to it. God Bless you all!

    1. AlexxFresh
      #10 The hubble doesn’t use colour film at all? No kidding. What a job that would be, flying up to the hubble to change the film every few days, taking it to the chemist to get the negatives developed……
      And yes, I guess you could say that it takes shades of black and white as the signal is converted into 1’s and 0’s by the DAC before being transmitted. ¬†The same way our digital cameras store colour pictures as 1’s and 0’s on our memory cards.

      1. slymonster
        The point I’m making is with the trillions of dollars spent for NASA’s budget why is the pubic OK with composites? Just shut the conspiracy idiots up and show some proof; they’d do that if they could leave LEO past the Van Allen Radiation Belts which cause radiation poisoning like the 1999 crew who experienced seeing lights like “flying stars” when they closed their eyes after entering the brim of the inner belt. Here is an interesting link:

        1. AlexxFresh slymonster
          Ignoring the fact that we have satellites in geosynchronous orbit (much higher), It seems like low earth orbit should be proof enough that he earth is round. It’s in the name: it’s an orbit. If you accept that there is an orbit, how exactly does this fit with a flat earth?

          1. Dwarfdeaths
            Orbits are parallel around a sphere or above a planisphere; I have provided links and videos with time stamps in an above comment. LEO is perfectly possible. Getting past the radiation – not so much.

          2. Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh slymonster
            Geosynchronous orbits from American GPS and Russian GLONASS are very peculiar, indeed. LORAN was the predecessor of GPS. Base stations positioned 50 miles apart, accompanied by miles of cables (land and deep sea), could coordinate locations for the US Military. These base stations and cables all still exist. They were very accurate, it begs the question: why switch to satellites that require many to be in geosynchronous orbit, simultaneously, to maintain a connection when the LORAN system could just be upgraded? Base stations don’t pass below the horizon and out of the communicative line of sight, and more stations can be added. The accuracy would never be lost. Perhaps this is why GPS signals loose accuracy with altitude; because they are not connecting to satellites a million miles away, but instead to base towers on the ground.

          3. Dwarfdeaths

            AlexxFresh Dwarfdeaths slymonster
            Why use satellites instead of ground-based systems?
            First, coverage: satellites a much larger area per unit, rendering them vastly more cost effective for getting worldwide coverage. (Compare the two images
            Second, accuracy: the worst-case accuracy of GPS is about the same as the best possible accuracy of LORAN systems in their hay-day (6-7m). the best possible accuracy for GPS, with additional systems to correct for errors (ex. atmosphere) can reach centimeter and even millimeter-level accuracy.
            So, in short: GPS better, both in cost and theoretical limitations. That’s why.

        2. AlexxFresh¬†slymonster Well of course they have to test the shielding before they send people up. The same way they had to test the shielding on the Apollo missions. The same way every car manufacturer has to crash test any new production cars. Different shapes, even using the same technology they have to test for leaks and ensure all the latest electronics (which are a lot more fragile than their 60’s counterparts are shielded enough) . He did not say Nasa doesn’t know how to get past the radiation, just that they need to make sure their new design will.
          So although you might think that link was interesting, it wasn’t. It’s just common sense. ¬†Stop trying to read between the lines. It just makes you look either ignorant.
          Why is it that conspiracy theorists jump on any little thing and blow it out of all proportion?

        3. AlexxFresh¬†slymonster Oh, and there’s plenty of ‘proof’. Millions of people believe the proof. So why should Nasa spend any time at all on the fools that listen to idiots on the net who use poor science to try to disprove them?

  50. ransomovitch

    Attention all readers Mr dwarfdeaths can’t be arsed to carry out his own research into the flat earth because he has more important things to do, secondly, he really does believe NASA accidentally taped over the original moon landing footage, (leaving no room any longer to have anybody demand the footage be made public so it’s obvious flaws can be revealed for the world to see) make of Mr DwarfDeaths what you will. I am not generally mean-spirited towards people but in Mr dwarfdeaths, we see the typical gullible, armchair critic, spouting all the usual conventional claptrap, with an obvious brain however but not daring to engage it. Mr dwarfdeaths, for your lazy, intellectually dishonest approach to thinking about life, you get the ‘reality’ you desreve

    1. ransomovitch
      I just stated I HAVE done experiments and didn’t record them for Youtube. If anyone is being dishonest, it’s you.
      I’m not here to make excuses for mistakes made by other people. I asked you a simple question: do you believe that all 50 space agencies, all footage and images, and all 6,600+ satellites launched to date, from around the world, are a conspiracy?

      1. Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch I would like to see the results of that experiement also.

    2. ransomovitch Conventional captrap. The same claptrap that built your computer, dvd player, Xbox, cellphone, and anything else you use. We got all that stuff right, but damn, we can’t figure out how to fly a plane or space rocket or take a photograph. It’s hard to believe a global society as advanced as we are can get so many technical things right but get this one thing so wrong.

    3. ransomovitch  Please contact these folks, tell them what you believe. I think out sheer amazement they will invite you down to the south pole. http://www.usap.gov/

      If this isn’t good enough, get in your boat and go around Antartica and measure the distance. It shouldn’t be anywhere near the distance as shown on the flat disk model. If you truly are going to dedicate your life to this, I fear ¬†you are going to waste a good life. There are some really quick ways for some very experienced and learned people to help you.

  51. I would find debates like this useful if:
    a)  The flat-earthers could provide evidence of a flat earth without referring to having to go on your own journey to find it.
    b) ¬†Flat-earthers wouldn’t refer to Christianity (Christianity by and large has never believed in a flat Earth and that is not what the bible teaches)
    c) ¬†Flat-earthers would not ‘cherry pick’ what parts of science to believe in.
    d)  Flat-earthers would not demand photographs of a spherical Earth when they themselves cannot produce one photograph of a flat Earth.
    e) Flat-earthers ignore all photographic evidence taken by all agencies, private companies and private individuals, often citing the reason the horizon looks curved is the use of a wide angle lens.
    f) Flat-earthers ignore the fact that the Russians would have been the first to disprove that the Americans ever made it to the moon.
    g) Flat-earthers believe in god. Yet fail to see that it was faith that was the first way to convince people to believe in something without any evidence in order to control them. Yet they say that all the scientists and governments of the world are conspiring to make us believe the Earth is a globe in order to control us.
    h)  Flat-earthers ignore all of the ordinary people whose jobs would not be possible if the Earth was not a globe.
    i) Flat-earthers would not dismiss the evidence placed before them without providing an acceptable scientific counter argument.
    j)  Flat-earthers would get their fact straight and be able to think for themselves. That means being able to point towards empirical evidence rather than some idiotic youtube video that perpetuates poor science.
    k) ¬†Flat-earthers would not say things like ‘gravity is just a theory’.
    l) ¬†Flat-earthers wouldn’t tell you to trust your eyes and then tell you that the sun is closer to the Earth than the moon and is always above the horizon.
    m) Flat-earthers would not tell you that you cannot trust what anyone says because everything you’ve been told is a lie/conspiracy yet refer to the bible or some random Youtube video as if that is telling you the truth.

    and many, many more salient points.

    1. slymonster I have to believe that they simply think it’s a “cool idea” and are arguing the case for it out of boredom. The amount of evidence debunking a flat Earth is insurmountable.

      1. BrianGrubba¬†slymonster I believe they are generally disenfranchised from normal social intercourse. They have probably been forcibly alienated by mainstream thinkers and are looking for something to call their own. Something to hang on to that makes them feel special and unique. They may not have the capacity to understand the science or even understand that there are things beyond their ability to understand. Therefore, in comes the cognitive dissonance to adjust the reality to what they are capable of understanding. With the internet, these folks can make some noise and be heard for the first time. But to make any true headway in society with these kind of baseless claims, they would have to communicate more effectively to gain more “believers” . A few of these video makers advantage of the folks looking to feel special. The people that follow these conspiracy theorists have a real conspiracy right in front of them — the guy making the video. They should be investigating those people, and actually they do. I’ve seen videos where the video makers are taking each other down. Fun!¬†

        Yes, to summarize it’s boredom. These aren’t usually mothers of 4 who work full time and have to rush home to make dinner. These are people with too much time on their hands.

    2. slymonster Your note “F” is the killer. Unless… THE RUSSIANS AND AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS COLLUDED!

    3. slymonster It is not a debate. ¬†Let’s say ¬†you are a kindergarten teacher and these people with the flat Earth claim are the students. While teaching the colors red, green and yellow, one student defecates on the floor. He points and says, “yellow!”. You say brown.

  52. Hey Slymonster…

    While have outlined some good points but not good enough to debunk the earth is a round flat plane. Two challenges for you….please explain why galaxies are flat…and why Nasa lies to us…look forward to your reply.

    1. apollo11
      I like how it’s our job to debunk a flat earth rather than your job to provide evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong. Google burden of proof.
      As for galaxies being flat – the short answer is angular momentum.
      See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM

        1. apollo11 Dwarfdeaths
          I apologize for skipping your second question – for some reason I didn’t notice it the first time I read.
          You claim that the consensus is wrong, and then go on to ignore evidence produced by NASA by saying they are lying to us. Again, burden of proof is on you. I will point out, however, that NASA is not REMOTELY the only space agency that has been to space or taken pictures while they were there. You live in a world where we have over 50 countries capable of space flight from around the world, having launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. It’s become a several-hundred billion dollar industry, involving many, many, people, and allowing for such technologies as GPS, satellite televisions, radio, and broadband, expanded mobile networks, and remote sensing/imaging.
          Do you really think all of that is a lie, when the Nixon administration couldn’t even handle Watergate? NASA isn’t our only source of information about space, but they are one of the oldest and best funded for exploratory purposes – hence why they produce so much information about our planet, our solar system, and the universe in general.

    2. apollo11 Only certain shaped galaxies are flat, so that does not provide any sway either way.
      Please cite these NASA lies. Give us proof that they lie, and I don’t mean some trumped up evidence that has been manipulated and put on Youtube, or some poorly researched and misunderstood media circus.

      1. slymonster¬†apollo11 Don’t play into this deflection. The argument that Organization X (fill in the X) ¬†lies is spurious, endless and irrelevant and plays into the only thing the people with alternative theories know. I can’t play chess, so let’s play tic tac toe instead. No we are playing chess. Don’t play chess or don’t want to LEARN chess, then go away.

        1. BrianGrubba

          devinsidney¬†slymonster¬†apollo11 So far every time a flat earther has been called out to explain the conspiracy, they went silent. To me that’s a suitable “win”.

  53. Why does anyone even bother arguing with these people? They aren’t ever going to be in a position to do anything important in the world. Just let them LARP.

    1. BrianGrubba I like that. That they are LARPing.It’s probably the only explanation I can understand.

  54. DaniloCavriago

    Really?. well, if these are the proofs the earth is not flat, it’s just an extremly weak theory. you certainly didn’t do good to your cause. Ridiculous.

    1. DaniloCavriago
      Lol @¬†pictures being extremely weak evidence. Only in the flat earth world…

    2. DaniloCavriago You cannot have a ‘weak’ scientific theory. Look up the definition of a scientific theory.

  55. We know the North Star does seem to move as the Earth rotates. It appears as a stable constant in the Northern Hemisphere. Knowing this it should be able to be seen anywhere on the flat earth model/map. This is not the case. There are places in the Southern Hemisphere that cannot see the North Star and cannot see some other Northern Hemisphere stars/constellations. The same can be said for the Northern Hemisphere not seeing Southern Hemisphere stars. Also the stars in both hemispheres move east to west BUT they will appear to move in different directions in the two hemispheres. This is known as¬†Diurnal motion.¬†Looking up in the Northern hemisphere they stars will move east to west in counter-clockwise motion around the North Star. Looking up in the Southern hemisphere the stars move east to west in clockwise motion around¬†Sigma Octantis, the closest star to the south pole. I guess that deflates the flat earth theory like a New England Patriot deflating footballs…

    1. brijenn12 This is simply perspective and can also be explained by a flat pane being so wide (say 4,000,000,000 miles) that not all constellations are visible from opposite hemispheres. It can also explain the star’s opposing rotations as size affects perspective and looking North you will see counterclockwise while looking South you will see clockwise rotations. We can debate for days, the fact of the matter is, they are both interchangeable and there are ad hoc theories that can explain both. Why can’t NASA shut everyone up and just take some real photos, or leave LEO? Why are you paying them trillions of dollars and being OK with composites?

      1. AlexxFresh brijenn12
        I don’t know exactly what your deal is with composite images – it’s just a combination of several “real photos.”
        NASA has been beyond LEO, has taken single photographs of the entire earth from several different spacecraft on missions, (the first being from the moon) and collected lots of other really useful data from space besides. I also don’t get most FE’s fixation with NASA in general.
        You live in a world where we have over 50 countries capable of space flight from around the world, having launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. It’s become a several-hundred billion dollar industry, involving millions of people, and allowing for such technologies as GPS, satellite televisions, radio, and broadband, expanded mobile networks, and remote sensing/imaging.¬†
        Do you really think all of that is a lie, when the Nixon administration couldn’t even handle Watergate? NASA isn’t our only source of information about space, but they are one of the oldest and best funded for exploratory purposes – hence why they produce so much new information about our planet, our solar system, and the universe in general.
        You are free to ignore all evidence from space, but quite frankly it is the simplest way to prove the shape of the earth and also happens to be the type of evidence that you seem least likely to accept.

        1. Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12

          Hi Dwarf….you made a good point regarding Nixon and Watergate….however the only so-called photograph of the earth was taken in 1972 which Nasa calls “The Blue Marble”…..out of all those space flights Nasa conducted and the thousands of Billions of dollars they have received from the taxpayers..the best they can produce is one photo in the past 43 years?…….forget the FE theories for now….there is ample and credible evidence to support that Nasa has lied to the public…does this factor into anything?

        2. Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12

          Hi Dwarf….must say that you made a good point regarding Nixon and Watergate….speaking of Nixon…why was he not present during the lift-off of Apollo11…the biggest show on earth?…one other note….the only so-called photograph of the Earth was taken in 1972 which Nasa calls “The Blue Marble”…..out of all those space missions Nasa conducted and the thousands of Billions of dollars they have raked in ¬†from the taxpayers..the best they can produce is one photo in the past 43 years?…….forget the FE theories for now….there is ample and credible evidence to support that Nasa has lied to the public…does this factor into anything?

          1. apollo11 Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12
            Would you people stop it with the ‘only one photo’ things. Do a quick search on google.
            Here: http://www.livescience.com/20369-earth-pictures-space.html
            this is what you can come up with in the first 30 seconds if you are really that interested. STOP believing everything you read and do a little research.

          2. apollo11 Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12
            First, I will refer you to slymonster’s response about many other photos taken. We have lots of pictures.
            Second, Nixon’s whereabouts are irrelevant to the validity of the evidence you’re presented with.
            “There is ample and credible evidence to support that NASA has lied to the public.”
            You claim this, yet fail to demonstrate it. Evidence please. 

            And, perhaps more importantly, even if NASA has told lies (large government agencies are prone to mistakes and corruption, I freely admit), you are entirely missing my main point, which is that NASA is not remotely the only presence in space. Reread my first reply:
            There are over 50 countries capable of space flight from around the world, having launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. It’s become a several-hundred billion dollar industry, involving millions of people, and allowing for new¬†technologies.
            This is not about NASA, it’s the entire world. My point is this: when you have a conspiracy involving literally millions of people, it is virtually impossible to keep it a secret. Frankly, it would be easier to actually GO to the moon than to conduct such a large deception, given that we’ve had the technology to do so for decades.

          3. Dwarfdeaths¬†apollo11¬†AlexxFresh¬†brijenn12 aaaaand you shut him down. ūüėČ It’s that easy.

          4. Dwarfdeaths¬†apollo11¬†AlexxFresh¬†brijenn12 Again with the US-centric point of view. This isn’t about NASA or US politicians. It’s science.

          5. Dwarfdeaths apollo11 AlexxFresh brijenn12 Yeah, but this goes to 11.

        3. Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12 Why just NASA? What about the Japanese, Indian, Russian and European space agencies to name just a few. 

          Get a telescope.

      2. AlexxFresh brijenn12 In your flat earth disk postulation I can see how anyone following a compass to true north would meet. But following a compass to true south? How would that work if South is millions of miles in circumference?

        1. AlexxFresh brijenn12 Honestly, navigating on a flat earth by compass would become logarithmically more difficult the further South (or towards the edge) you went. But I assure you that it is not any more difficult in the furthest reaches of Australia or South America than it is in Northern Europe. Think about that for a few seconds. Give me some sort of reasonable explanation why it is no more difficult. Do the math first though, or I will just shout you down.

      3. AlexxFresh¬†brijenn12 But it cannot explain why¬†Sigma Octans can be seen three continents simultanously looking south on all of them. The math doesn’t work out.¬†https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4CPL4mcpDc

  56. slymonster
    You can only learn if you wish to learn. Your cognitive dissonance will not allow you to learn anything if you cannot open your mind to the possibilities of things existing in a way other than how you originally perceive. 
    Do not believe anything I say, because I am simply stating my opinion. When I provide verifiable facts, verify them on your own so that you are not “taking my word for it.” I am going to present you with three YouTube Videos. These are not your average morons behind a mic speculating to the Moon and back. These are lectures from scholars taken from a classroom in a University and posted to YouTube. I do not expect you to be convinced by anything I or they say, but simply take it at face value. I wish you the best in your quest for knowledge or quest to disprove those who esteem to be enlightened.¬†

    Professor Phillip Scott giving a lecture of the origins of the Heliocentric Model. This video is two hours long so I’ll save you some time and suggest you watch between 22:30 to 44:35. Within these two time stamps, he expounds all the scientific data failing to prove rotundity or rotation of Earth; complete with names, dates and experiments.¬†

    Doctor Richard Thompson giving a lecture of Vedic Cosmology and Creation vs The Big Bang. It is also two hours long, I do not have special time stamps for this as it is all amazing, but this may not be for you.

    Lastly, this is not a lecture but still an educational video about Vedic Cosmology. It is almost an hour long but you only need to watch the first fifteen minutes or so to get the idea of a planisphere to sphere conversion (6:30). It explains Vedic Cosmology in a way most Heliocentric’s can appreciate. The video even detests the Flat Earth Model calling it “naive”(14:15) but this is only because the video is made by a University that backs the Heliocentric Model. ¬†It states the Earth is round (7:30) because of sunrise and sunset, but that can be disputed with the explanation of the Sun (9:30) and its opposite darkness (10:00). It also mentions the Astrolabe (18:05) and how accurate it is Geocentrically to Heliocentricity in planisphere to sphere conversion.
    (Time stamps in parenthesis)

    I have no interest in converting anyone from Heliocentric to Geocentric or Flat Earth.

    1. AlexxFresh slymonster I have no issue with studying ancient cosmology, but that does not make it true.
      If I explained how Sherlock Holmes solved the case of the Scarlett Shoes, that does not mean that Sherlock Holmes ever existed.
      There have been many ideas and models throughout history. But only one has been scientifically confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations.
      There are videos on Youtube that want you to believe that Aliens have a secret base on the moon. I have no interest in even entertaining this idea either.

      1. BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
        The videos, which I doubt you watched, are lectures and an educational video.

        1. BrianGrubba

          AlexxFresh¬†BrianGrubba I skimmed through them and picked up the gist of what he was getting at. I don’t need to sit through a 2 hour lecture by someone who clearly doesn’t have a concrete grasp of astrophysics in order to come to a conclusion.

          1. BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
            Dr. Phillip Scott is a PhD in astrophysics.

          2. BrianGrubba

            AlexxFresh¬†BrianGrubba Well someone needs to take that away because he’s clearly showing signs of dementia.

          3. BrianGrubba

            AlexxFresh¬†BrianGrubba “We don’t have time to go through all of them…”


          4. BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
            I provided time stamps for Dr. Philip Scott’s lecture (22:30-44:35); explaining how the renaissance astronomers got to the Heliocentric Model from previous models. It is accurate in dates, times, names, tests, and conclusions. If you do no wish to watch, and maintain he is not qualified; that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The material between those time stamps can be verified by extensive research. He does not speculate or give his opinion, he simply states historic facts.

          5. BrianGrubba

            AlexxFresh BrianGrubba I apologize for responding. I did so before noticing that you were destroyed in every other comment thread in this article. Have a good day

          6. BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
            Again, your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. Good day, sir.

  57. What disturbs me the most is not that these people think conspiracy and flat earth, but that these people exist at all. With the best education, equipment, and solid proof to the contrary the best they come up with is that NASA are in on it and everyone who agrees with Nasa is in on it as well. In on what? For Christ sake. Do some digital tagging so we know who the stupid are when it come time for a culling.

      1. devinsidney¬†If that aint the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is! ¬†The amount of ego in that one line…as if scientist have NEVER been wrong! ¬†Why is it widely acceptable to call people stupid for questioning what we see and hear today? ¬†Our governments lie to us all the time with a straight face and have stats to back it yet we find it extremely unrealistic that we could be being lied to on this? ¬†Ask any of these Global Green Earth activist companies such as “Greenpeace, Surfrider, Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, National Resources Defense Council, the California Water Resources Control Board, and others”¬†what the leading cause is for global pollution and waste is and they will all tell you Fossil Fuels and public waste etc. ¬†When in all actuality its Animal Agriculture…and these are the folks that are supposed to be trying to “save” the Earth yet they pretend they have no idea what you are talking about when studies have proven its BY FAR the leading cause…did I say BY FAR!!!!!!! ¬†Big business is a torn in our sides and they control EVERYTHING…the news, the markets, money, life, truth and lies. Watch Cowspiracy. ¬†Now, I’m not sitting here saying that everything should be treated as a conspiracy or cover up but could you really blame people for thinking so when things like this are happening right in front of our eyes EVERYDAY? ¬†And trust me they too have stats and numbers that say its not Animal Agriculture…so now you see we ALL have no concept of what we don’t know.

        1. devinsidney

          flem34 devinsidney I think you just made my point. A long reply, none of which is about science. You have no understanding of that which you have not experienced. You are deflecting to other topics, mainly a flavor of politics I am not interested in. Keep it to physics and mathematics.

          1. @devinsidney…sorry I was using examples to explain a point. And the topic was, (for this particular post) “concept of what they don’t know”…didn’t deflect to another topic, I just used an example that wasn’t about the earth being flat or round. I very much stayed on point! But here is a better one for you…The Big Bang Theory (science?). So explain to me in detail exactly how this explosion occured? What triggered it, and why? What forces were in play? Oh, no you don’t know?….that’s weird. That’s because it’s equivalent to trying to explain pregnancy and how it came to be without understanding conception first. Clearly another example of something unknown attempting to be explained by folks that weren’t there (“you have no understanding of that which you have not experienced”). And you also say”none of which is about science”…so global warming and pollution have nothing to do with science??? Wrong, Yet so quick to paint me as the ignorant one? In order to have this argument (which I would have preferred to be a DISCUSSION) you have to understand both sides and open your mind a bit and not attempt to look down on people with opposing views to that of your own. The point I bring up was to get you to see that what we know is not always what we think we know. You brag so much about the principles of science and how much fact is involved but leave important parts out about how often this science is actually wrong and how often the full scope of an issue and/or topic is not fully shared with the general public and frequently mislead (which was the point of my reference to “Cowspiracy”). Not saying you will be wrong on this but every century we have a new group of “scientist” trying to make their mark on history and it almost always means the debunking of principles and/or theories previously believed to be fact…maybe some of the ones you have mentioned in your posts, then what happens to all of your FACTS and concepts of things you know?…ahhhh nevermind…I forgot, it’s science, the undefeated champ of knowledge…never wrong…

          2. devinsidney

            flem34¬†You say “both sides?” I believe you are trying to present to me a false dichotomy. I believe there can be more than the two sides. Perhaps there is someone that believes the world is a square and your flat earth is just one side of the square. Let’s say the person that believes in square Earth agrees with your political arguments, that we cannot trust the various institutions, that we are being brainwashed by the government. You are in complete agreement that the world is not a globe. However, now you disagree about flat vs. square. How do you argue your case? You can’t use the arguments that science is sometimes wrong, or NASA is a lying to us. You both agree. So, again, how do you make your case to the square earther?

          3. Sorry, to be more clear, by “both sides” I meant the relevant discussion of FLat vs Round. Absolutely there can be and are other perspectives on the configuration of our planet. A key point to note here, one that I failed to provide clarity on is that I don’t 100% agree with either argument on flat or round. I am here to gain clarity but I have to try my best to argue every point I thought I previously knew. I have just recently opened my eyes and mind to the possibility of a flat earth and only because I felt I would doing myself a diservice by not examining all the aspects of each. Some aspects don’t make sence to me regarding flat earth and you have made several good/great points that make me feel silly for even considering the possibility…but I also can see really good points made by flat earth on why round earth is false, that makes me second guess what I previously knew. I would love to put all my doubts to bed but personal observations of the horizon, clouds etc “appear” to be more consistent with that of a flat surface so I must question what I currently know and see if that holds up with the newly acquired info. Maybe I am misinformed, or naive even but I am trying to be as realistic with myself as can be. And I am not using “science is sometimes wrong” to prove you are wrong…the statements about that are my way of asking you the repetitive question of “how can you be sooooo sure”? Literally just trying to get you to explore all possibilities outside of what we are told and not just write them off as “nonsense”. It’s a fun debate because it makes me think outside of the box and beyond.

          4. devinsidney

            flem34 I am glad you enjoy this as a debate. To each their own. From my point of view, there is no debate. I would suggest if you are curious, that you find legitimate sources to enlighten you. I think it is important to revisit the false dilemma — flat vs. globe. If I believe the Earth is a square shape and I agree that we should be more cynical about our government and educational systems, that is, we are being ‘duped’, then how do you convince me the Earth is flat and not a square. Just like you, I believe the Earth being a globe is nothing but a lie. We could agree endlessly about NASA faking photos and governments lying to us. We are so close actually in what we believe. You believe in a flat Earth, I believe we are flat also, but we have six flat sides, albeit, yours is a disc shape. How do you then go about debating me as a Square Earther?

          5. Well for me, what’s more of a legitimate source than self observations? When I look out at the Horizon, I get no indication of it being curved. The horizon makes zero sense when you factor in the numbers provided by NASA. What I would expect to see at the Horizon is not what I see. Studies across the world have shown large areas of land to be absolutely flat where NASA says we should see about 8inches roughly per mile. If you look at the boat video at the top, how do you explain the view from where the camera is set? Well beyond the mileage NASA indicates for curvature. That to me is a legitimate source because the numbers are being put to the test in front of your eyes. But on to the flat vs square. Since we are not actually having this debate (or non-debate as you put it), it would require more specifics on areas we would be discussing. But to humor this a bit let’s say we were “debating” the Horizon as I am above. I would first need to know if they believe we live on one side of this square(all of us) and the sides and bottoms of the square are what’s under us or if they believe that water and land are configured around each side of this square like in a round earth model. If it’s the latter I would say look at the Horizon because we would be able to see the edges of this square as we travel around it. If it’s the former it will be hard. Everyone believes there is something under us, round, square, or flat. How that is actually configured is a point I have not talked much about from a square or flat standpoint. But our points would be very similar in nature unless you dived into something very specific…a square and flat aren’t that much different just like, apparently, round and pear are similar…well according to Neil Degrasse. Just poking fun there, I know I’m taking his comments out of context a bit but circle, round, oval…all similar so concepts and pricicples you believe would also be very similar. How would you go about debating me as an Oval Earther?

          6. devinsidney

            flem34 Okay, so you say if the Earth were square we would be able to see the edges of the square as we travel around it. What do we currently see at the edges of flat disc Earth? How does the edge of the flat, disc Earth compare or contrast to the square?

          7. Now we are gonna open a can of worms neither of really care about but I will humor, again. You must realize what I said in my first post to understand the vast differences you are attempting to compare. I said “water and land configured around each side” In reference to your above comment “as we travel around it”….so literally like the “globe” but a 3dimensional square instead of a circle. As we made intersections across the globe we would see the edges of this 3dimensional square since we are living on all 6 sides (I would not be able to travel one side to the other without seeing the edge of those two sides intersecting). The difference is that on flat earth you only live on one plain rather than 6 so there is your difference. For a similarity I would say for any given side…if the people were blocked and confined to their side with no knowledge of the other 5 it would seem exactly the same…minus the fact one is flat square and the other is flat circle. I will continue to humor because I love debate…or non-debate ūüôā

          8. devinsidney

            flem34 Go to school and take an astro-physics course from a good teacher. Get off the internet and stop watching videos made by frauds and hucksters.

          9. It’s a fraud to time lapse a horizon? It’s fraud to pull data from NASA then compare that data to data from Skippers that have ACTUALLY seen light houses from 40+miles out? It’s fraud to pull actual News coverage of a visual event scientist say could never be seen but when it was they called it a mirage? It’s fraud to take a photo of the sun rays glaring through a cloud and the respective angles of those glares (Rays)? You constantly drill me on what my knowledge of science and math etc…but what is your knowledge of the word “fraud”…you might have the wrong definition or used the wrong word? But I’m here to help you so consider this a gift from Google. “Fraud: is a type of criminal activity, defined as: ‘abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someone’s rights for personal gain’. Put simply, fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party”…you are well within your rights to call it false interpretation, false observation etc if you would like, but nothing about actual footage is deceptive. Abuse of position? For who? False repesentation? Of something you believe to be real? Prejudicing someone’s rights for personal gain? Who’s doing that? Again, you are attempting to make me look stupid and uneducated and using those two things as your sword and shield…which is all fine but you decided to bring a knife or “sword” to a gun fight…swing away my friend but I’m the one with the actual ammo…your sword will dull and your shield will break…and I will still have ammo. Round 2?

          10. yardapekazoo68

            devinsidney¬†flem34 When you say “good teacher”, do you mean the same ones that told us Columbus discovered America? Or the ones that tell us George Washington was the first president? (Technically he was the first president of the United States) There were 14 presidents prior to him when we were governed by the Continental Congress. Don’t know about you two, but I never heard of these 14 presidents…ever. In my opinion, we should have learned about the first 14 prior to Washington. Just not the case. If this is news to you, then you should really question how well you were “educated”. But as you know, it’s all about indoctrination.¬†
            ¬† ¬†Here’s one you two can argue about. As you know, Stanley Kubrick has been rumored to have filmed the moon landings. If you research this you will find pics of him meeting with NASA officials. The reason for ¬†faking the landings is just simply because we didn’t have the technology to get there and back. In essence, we have a Hollywood film maker creating “history”. Now, we have yet another Hollywood film maker making another journey into the unknown. That film maker would be James Cameron. Did you know that he just made the first manned journey to the very bottom of the Mariana Trench? Now ask yourselves, why James Cameron of all people? He’s no scientist. Why is a film maker doing what is usually reserved for scientists or the military? Now we have Stanley Kubrick filming mans journey to the moon, and do we now have James Cameron filming mans journey to the very bottom of the ocean? When I say filming, I mean faking. Now if you bother digging into was behind the scenes of this record breaking monumental dive, you will find that NASA was heavily involved! Ta dah……………

          11. yardapekazoo68¬†devinsidney¬†flem34 That’s exactly the type of teaching Devinsidney was referring to. ¬†I don’t get too much into things I can’t observe on my own because I don’t general trust the way the media etc works. ¬†I could very well see this being true but personally can’t comment any further than that (regarding the film making). ¬†You might be better suited for this argument in the event Devinsidney wants to dive deeper (no pun intended). ¬†Seems to be a common theme though that some of the most controversial events usually have NASA involvement…could it just be convenient to blame them…could it be true?? ¬†Both are unknown to me but what I do know is that in this world when news leaks, there’s USUALLY some truth to it.

          12. devinsidney¬†flem34 Wallace Thornhill (My teacher for today) went to school so I will let him poke holes in your lies “Gravity is FULLY understood”…silly child.


            He also discusses PLENTY of other theories he finds odd and/or incorrect. ¬†I will allow you to watch on your own though. ¬†I mean you have probably already seen this since I understand you have infinite knowledge on the topic and I’m just some rookie who did zero research to come to my most recent conclusions. ¬†Stop being ignorant and thinking you know EVERYTHING about the universe and more importantly, about me. ¬†The moment you stop searching for knowledge is the moment you have just been passed by someone else. ¬†Get off your theoretical astro-physics high horse and pretend for just one moment you know why they call it THEORETICAL science. ¬†You asked me “Why would something like this come across as educational or legitimate to you”…well to you I say, “what’s more likely to be true”? ¬†Something you can physically see and observe or something that relies on equations and calculations (know of which are your own) that are entirely based on a theory and in most cases can’t be seen or detected? ¬†Do you feel silly yet? ¬†You should…

          13. devinsidney

            flem34 There are so many better topics to explore than this one if you are intellectually curious. There is no debate here. The flat Earth position presumes a massive global conspiracy. Russian, American and Chinese space agencies have launched humans into space to orbit the Earth. Many other people from other countries have come for the ride. To believe that we have been fooled to this extent is incomprehensible to me. A person must be extremely disenfranchised from the functioning world to buy into such a conspiracy. Log into FlightAware and track the miles/kilometers traveled by airliners and look at the paths they take. Then try to reconcile this with your flat world map. The numbers won’t work out on your flat earth map, especially in the southern hemisphere. Now, if you say you can’t trust FlightAware or any other site, then I say, why trust these flat Earth videos you watch? Your ability to discriminate frauds and phonies from legitimate practitioners plays a big part in this. I have to believe people who believe these alternate theories do not work as engineers, research scientists, doctors, pilots, navigators, or anything else requiring a prerequisite education based on established science. If you think we can simply be lied to at a global scale and all of these people are in on it, then I can’t help you. Take a flight east or west. A long flight. The Earth is spinning making the daylight that is experienced longer or shorter. The model for how the sun must operate to produce the lighting patterns we see has to involve physics that can’t possibly exist or involves made up psuedo science forces. How is it dark in China when it is light in Canada, then 12 hours later the reverse? Is it the sun that is supposedly moving? By what forces?

          14. Which is why I referenced “COWSPIRACY”. Would you not consider that a global conspiracy? Please watch before you ignorantly comment. If something like that can be a global conspiracy, why is it far fetched that this can be? Please keep in mind that “scientist” have said something completely differnt than what “COWSPIRACY” discovers. If you accept the information in the video as true (which it is) then you have answered your own question.
            On to the flights. I man did an interview with a HARVARD GRAD Doctor on science and the DOCTOR admitted in the interview that flights from the west coast headed east bound should experience much different flight times…so he is wrong…or maybe he just misspoke (I should mention that the topic was why flights from the west coast to east coast had the same flight duration as flights from the east coast to the west coast when the earth is spinning at 1000+ mph east bound)? He convientently gave no explanation just like you have done in all this back and forth… But at least he admitted it very much should be VERY different. Also, a cannon experiment was done where they lined up cannons and shot them straight into the air and when the cannon ball came down it landed within 2feet of where it lifted from and in a few cases actually landed right back in the nozzle of the cannon…how does that happen if the earth is spinning at 1000+mph…shouldn’t the ball land very very far since the actual cannon is on the rotating earth yet the ball is not, THUS making it Unsusceptible to the influence of the “spinning earth”. Don’t worry, there was a control in this experiment :). So they decided to point cannons at all points, north, south, east and west…surely we should see some difference now…NOPE…ALL THE SAME RESULTS ( best if you look it up yourself as I’m sure I’m not doing the experiment justice with my explanation).

          15. devinsidney

            flem34 Point taken. You were arguing my statement regarding the limits of your scope of expertise. I give  you that, sir.

          16. devinsidney flem34 I appreciate that!  If you find the time check out this video for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNDgkxILGDQ

            In this video the narrator touches on a few key points that have me confused as to how the horizon could be curved. ¬†He also has a great video that shows the sun putting a single hot spot on the clouds from up above…how would you explain this? (@32:55 in the video). The sun should cast a unnoticeable glare on the Earth that should gradually go from bright to light when moving from the center hot spot out to the edges of its reach…but instead what we see is a single hot spot as if the sun is very very close. ¬†Similar to using a flashlight. ¬†The further away the flashlight is from the target the less focused the hot spot will be and it will illuminate across almost seamlessly…however, the closer you get to the target the more centralized the heat and light become.

            Back to the Horizon.  Another great video clip is @33:20.  Explain that for me if you can.  It has me puzzled.  The sun never appears to come from beneath rather from the distance.  Time lapse is great because you can see everything moving around us and at no point in time do we EVER appear to be moving.

            @52:36 we look at sun rays. ¬†With the sun at the distance it is from Earth, and considering the small nature of Earth by comparison, shouldn’t we see sun rays that would appear parallel to each other? ¬†Be honest with yourself and tell me it does not at least APPEAR as if the source of light in that photo is just above those clouds. ¬†If someone showed you that picture and you put what YOU KNOW about light and how it reacts to distance, how far would you say it was from those clouds…you might not have an exact number but I can guarantee you wouldn’t bark out 93million miles away.

            @1:00:38 the longest bridge in the World is discussed (over 20 miles). ¬†This bridge should have had to compensate for curvature of about 384 feet. ¬†They said to compensate for the curve they added 2 inches to the bridge…can we do the math on that one?

            @1:01:58 the narrator uses a light house and NASA’s data on curvature…NASA’s DATA! ¬†For this example I completely get that the numbers cant and won’t be exact due to the violent up and down nature of the Oceans…however, being about a thousand feet off is not due to waves and tides unless this is the greatest storm of all times always brewing in the Oceans.

            @1:10:36 ¬†this is why no traction can be gained with Flat Earth. ¬†They come with hardcore evidence and these guys come back with some BS that no one understands…show me a real instance of a mirage and atmosphere bending images around something? ¬†We should be able to replicate this in a lab on a small scale at least…this is the problem. ¬†You speak about not being able to “understand that which you have not experienced” well to that I say, recreate it. ¬†If you understand it so well, recreate it…can’t!…a “Mirage”…no, no that’s not really there…its way way over that bend, do you really believe that?

          17. devinsidney

            flem34 devinsidney All of this would also be true with a square earth with human inhabitants only on one side. So, as a square earther, I agree with  you until a point. The Earth has 6 sides, not just one.

          18. Okay…again this was not a real debate but a hypothetical one…let’s not waste time arguing a point neither of us agree on…but I will absolutely continue to humor it if you wish?

          19. devinsidney

            flem34 devinsidney They added 2 inches to the bridge? The length or the height?

            I don’t understand what you are asking about measuring the distance of the sun.¬†

            This video is silly. It has a skull avatar at the bottom right corner and the claims it posits are ridiculous and the grammar us horrendous. Why would something like this come across as educational or legitimate to you? I fear it is because you have no idea what real science looks like. ¬†And I won’t hold that against you as you don’t know what you don’t know.

          20. Okay..you are focused on the skull avatar and discrediting it due to that…? You speak of grammar and type “us horrendous”…? I’m Not the type to usually point out grammatical mistakes because I know mine is not the best but if you are going to criticize then be sure your’s is perfect! You say I don’t know or “have no idea” of real science…weird because I used an example of “real science” in my reference to NASA data with the light house…could you school me on real science and explain that please?

          21. You don’t understand what I mean about distance? Ok…look at the P.I.C.T.U.R.E…NOW….THINK TO YOURSELF…HOW FAR DO I THINK THAT LIGHT SOURCE IS AWAY FROM THE CLOUDS WHILE ACCOUNTING FOR THE EFFECTS IT HAS ON THE ANGLES OF THE RAYS OF LIGHT SHOWING THROUGH! Sorry, thought that was clear. Does it look like to you that the light source is close or very very far away…keep in mind the drastic differences in angles of the Rays of light. That only could be achieved with a light source that is very close…come on, you know this already. You are smart, I know you can figure this one out. Draw me an illustration of where you think it is…or I can do it for you if you are still confused on the question at hand.

          22. As far as the bridge…let’s just do this for the sake of argument. Since you are so educated in physics and mathematics, how about you tell me how much of an adjustment for curvature should be made to a 24mile long bridge? Be as specific as you would like…and how about this as well…do the numbers for 2 inches, length and height while you are at it….maybe it will make sense once you explain it (and I mean that in the most humble of ways).

          23. Can you explain the mirage I mentioned as well? I’m really looking for answers here. I’m not being ignorant in my mind because I have admitted what I don’t know and I am providing you with things to prove your case…you haven’t done much of that in my eyes. You seem to be dodging the visual evidence I have provided to support my case, and instead have decided to pick at my unverified knowledge (key word “unverified”) and the integrity of a video due to an avatar!? So I guess we can’t take Walt Disney (the man) seriously about any topic other than cartoons? Just answer the questions without attempting to appear superior in knowledge and trying to use that to discredit everything. If you are so sure and it’s so much fact you have with science, physics and numbers, then prove each point wrong. Let’s now test what YOU KNOW and what you DON’T…NO MORE DODGING!

          24. soaringeagle

            temperature inversions are so common they happen once or twice a week in most areas¬† temperature inversions are when the air temperature rises, not falls¬† from fround level up to a inversion layer¬† ..often in my area where i fly its about 1500 fdeet¬† the inversion of the temperature causes refraction of light making distant objects appear to be “lifted’¬† you are actualy seeing farther along the curve because the light is being bent around the curve by the temperature inversion
            now because the temperature inversion only really affects soaring pilots you  will only know when its in effect by getting an aviation weather report but 1 for soaring (glider or sailplane pilots)  the reason it afects soaring is  it affects wether thermals can form above or below the inversion layer
            temperature inversions are also  typicaly slightly hazy below the layer  as smog and polution  and dust  othd other haze sources are trapped beneath the inversion layer

          25. soaringeagle

            devinsidney flem34 flat earthers are not looking for  evidence that makes sense they are looking for nonsense that feeds a paranoid delusion
            check out the brand new site http://www.flatearthdebunked.com we will examine the psychology behind this irrational belief as part of our long ranged plans to debunk this bunk

          26. soaringeagle

            devinsidney flem34 you cant replicate a mirrage..an atmospheric phenomenon in a enclosed lab however  if you know the aviation weather foerecast you can accurately preduict when it will ocur

            its called a temmperatture inversion
            just cause flat earthers are too dumb to understand science doesnt make science wrong it just makes you stupid

  58. DownIntheHolden

    Well your top ten are all so full of holes, and all bullshit- You look out through your asshole and snapshot a photo of the earth, like the so called as(s)tronauts did through a round window, to give us, a PHOTO-SHOPPED picture, of “earth, from space. by the Way that Same NASA is now saying and telling us the earth is actually more pear shaped, so the old marble earth photos were in fact, Photo-shopped wrong I guess?¬†
       Take your marble/ball earth and shove it up your ball ass! Thanks for your lies about PROOF- ASSHOLE!

    1. DownIntheHolden Why so angry? Why is this so important for you to get wrong? Your interest in science appears to be dwarfed by  your interest in antagonism. 
      Your homework is to explain how Euler’s method is used to solve ordinary differential equations.¬†

      Perhaps you should post on other science-base boards. Maybe one how a car engine works. You can touch and hold and see a car engine with your own eyes. Perhaps you can argue some of the principles of internal combustion. You are well-versed in thermal dynamics right? Or are you saying it is flat too?

  59. I will try and debate every figure but I’m kinda new to this so may need time to understand each. ¬†Not here to argue but instead to make sense of what we know and think we know. ¬†But figure 4 also is not a great example in my mind because again you assume figures on flat earth have an infinite view. ¬†There is a reason we cant see all the stars and its not necessary because the earth is round. ¬†At night there are a lot of factors to account for that your figure does not take into consideration like cloud cover. ¬†There are nights you go out and you can’t see a single star and there are other nights where you can see a lot. ¬†I look at the stars a lot and i notice sometimes unless i really focus in an area I don’t even realize a star is there because the other stars are a lot brighter. ¬†Consider this as well the earth is supposedly orbiting the sun and moving really really fast. ¬†Now consider that it takes a year to do one orbit. ¬†Now consider that on jan 1 we are facing the earth at noon and for ease of understanding this example, lets say on Jan 1 the sun facing side is east and the night side is west. ¬†Now consider 6months later we literally have to do the complete opposite because we will be exactly half way around the sun putting the sun facing side pointing west and the east facing side night. ¬†Now, explain to me how we see the same stars? ¬†we are facing in a completely different direction when looking at the stars in the galaxy…are you saying our orbit with the speed factor and the orbit of stars and galaxies and also accounting for their relevant speeds, that we are in literally perfect harmony? ¬†I hope my example made sense.

  60. Example 2 you use a ship as an example…here is a video that proves or at least shows otherwise ¬†https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObxiUMosj7o ¬†Either they are wrong about how much the earth curves or its flat…why are we pretending we don’t understand the principles of how water works…water will ALWAYS level itself. ¬†If you took a glass with a flat bottom and poured it half way full with water, you would see that water level in a straight line. ¬†if you took the same glass and rounded out the bottom middle to give yourself a half circle you wouldn’t see the water conform to that circle…instead what it will do is fill in the uneven area and flatted out at the top like this example below.

    1. flem34¬†Please elaborate on “water will always level itself?” Relative to what forces? How much gravity? Under what type of atmospheric pressure? Under what temperature? How much do you know about fluid dynamics? Viscosity? Density? Conservation laws? Compressible vs incompressible flow? Inviscid vs Newtonian and no-Newtonian fluids? Laminar vs turbulent flow. Benroulli’s equation? Euler equations? Darcy’s law.¬†

      You are missing the Earth’s gravity in the above diagrams. That is the overwhelming force being applied on the water.¬†

      Why should the water conform to the circle under “normal” conditions? Say, for instance, your living room? Are you saying that the curve in the glass has equal gravity to that of the Earth? The water doesn’t conform to a circle in a glass, therefore an ocean of water won’t conform to the curve of the Earth? Really?

  61. number 8 is a bad example because you are using something as an example that clearly isn’t understood entirely. ¬†If i have to manually change my clocks twice a year then that tells me something is not understood in its normal format so an adjustment has to be made. ¬†We don’t have to make adjustments to addition because it always works…we fully understand math…2+2 will always equal 4…you don’t hear anyone saying “2+2 equals 4 accept twice a year where the value of 2 is really only 1.5 so we have to add an extra 1 to make up the difference”. ¬†When you have to make adjustments that tells me you either don’t fully understand this entirely or you are trying to make sense of something with a little white out and eraser. ¬† Not saying this throws time zones out the window but you cant use something that’s not fully understood to back your case. ¬†And please don’t say they understand it because if they did there would be no need for an adjustment twice a year. ¬†Adjustment:¬†small alteration or movement made to achieve a DESIRED fit, appearance, or result. ¬†When ppl argue flat earth they don’t allow for this…there is no adjustment in flat earth that would be considered “OK” it would be the absolute death of any conversation or debate…yet Round earth is full of it. ¬†Again, not saying its not valid or that it is…just not a good example if you are trying to nail the¬†coffin¬†shut using plywood.

    1. flem34 Changing clocks for daylight savings time and back is FULLY understood and it is not a scientific concept. It’s simply a human adjustment. Instead of having sunlight at 5am, we are adjusting the clocks to have it start at 6am. Instead of night falling at 8pm, it then falls at 9pm. In the fall we will put the clocks back to where it is supposed to be: 1 hour ahead and 1 hour back = 0 hours change in the year, right? We are adjusting the clocks to be more in line with our sleep and awake patterns. We could move the clock any arbitrary amount. We could move the clock ahead by 4 hours instead and then pull it back 4 hours. It doesn’t change the celestial movements. Near the equator (the tropics) daylight savings time isn’t used because their days and nights remain roughly the same at 12 hours each. Those of use nearer to either pole will see hours of daylight change with seasons because our axis is tilted. Hence, in the beginning of the summer, we have 16 hours of daylight to 8 hours of night. It is the reverse at the beginning of the winter.¬†

      I am explaining too much. This is all you need to know. ¬†Between New Year’s Day 2014 and New Years’s Day 2015 you set your clock ahead by 1 hour and then back 1 hour. 1 hour – 1 hour = 0. A net difference of 0 hours. No adjustment made. You do that every year. Always 0 hours changed. You probably change your watch or clock by a minute or two all the time because your clock might run slow or fast. Doing so does not change the Earth’s day. It might change your day. You might go to bed 1 minute earlier, but the next day you might buy a new watch and it is set 2 minutes later. Now you are going to bed according to that watch, yet the Earth still rotates the same.

  62. This devinsidney guy is a fuckin’ joke. He’s commented on almost every contradictory comment in this thread. He’s got nothing better to do with his time then keep watch on this page. I’m not saying he’s a shill, but this is exactly how shills act. Don’t even waste your time reading or responding to his comments. They’ll just go on and on.

    1. Yeah, it seems that way. It doesn’t bother me though…if anything it just helps provide more evidence. Not once has the Devinsidney said anything to debunk any of the evidence I provided. They speak of education and knowledge yet has failed at actually using that knowledge to educationally disprove anything I have posted. Some of my post weren’t the best but I admit to being new to this possibility of a flat earth.

  63. ThadeusWord

    Please explain why: “The Mathematics ‘Add’ Up” against your #2 ‘theory’ ?¬†Take your binoculars to the beach and when you see a ship fade over the horizon, focus your binoculars on it, and you will still be able to see the ‘entire’ ship, and will be able to follow it for some time.¬†Can binoculars really see around the curve of the earth?¬†
    No, but according to science, the earth has a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile which means something you know to be 30 miles away, would be 600 feet below the horizon, and even with binoculars should not be visible.¬†So, assuming science isn’t trying to deceive us once again, please explain this:¬†Case in Point: The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.

    1. No one on here is going to attempt to debate this because they cannot. These are cold hard facts being put to the test in front of our eyes…no billion dollar telescopes or satellites (that only a hand full of scientist have access to), no 12 chalk board long equations to compute, and no convenient excuses (yet). This is one of two things…it’s one, either the wrong equation as to the extent of the earth’s curvature (which helps prove my point that not everything in science is FACT), or the Earth has no curve at all thus leading to this lie we have been living. They have no math to account for almost 1000feet. NOW, what WILL happen is they will come up with some reason like a “mirage” or make up some new effect we are experiencing to explain what their math cannot. They LOVE to throw education and experience of math and physics around when it is convenient, but now, when it’s really time to use that knowledge, all we hear is silence…you can’t use those things to back your claims ignorantly and then silently abandon the conversation when it’s time to “practice what you preach”.

    2. ThadeusWord Really? Your maths is way off. 8 inches per mile. 8 x 30 is 240 inches, or 20 feet. NOT anywhere near 600 feet. And as for your binoculars thing. I’m guessing you live nowhere near the sea, don’t have a decent pair of binoculars or have never watched a ship sail over the horizon. I live on the coast, in the middle of the solent, one of the world’s busiest shipping canals and can categorically say that ships do indeed sail over the horizon and ‘disappear’ from the bottom up. Why do you think that hundreds of years ago the ships lookouts were stationed in the crows nest? Or why modern day warships mount their radar at the top of the ship? I’ll give you a clue. In both instances it means they can ‘see’ further.
      Please do more research before professing to know the maths better than someone else. Because, as in this case, if you do not, you just look very foolish and gullible.

  64. What about being able to travel round it in a straight line and returning to your starting point without falling off?

    1. @wolfiness hey Try and check out some videos regarding flight times and paths on flat earth vs round earth. It will be easier if looked it up on your own than for me to try and explain it all in one post. But ask yourself this. If we are spinning at almost 1000mph westbound, why do we have the same flight times from the east coast to the west coast as we do the west coast to the east coast? The spin of the earth should make traveling against this 1000mph spin insanely difficult and we should see drastic differences in flight time…yet NOTHING!

      1. flem34 I looked it up, found videos by hysterical and hate-fuelled FE people vs. calm and rational scientists, and the science made a lot more sense to me than all the unexplaining of all the gazillion other obvious things showing the roundness of the earth that FEs have to try with tenuous conspiracy theories and simplistic misunderstandings of physics in order to try to make it flat.

        I also note that you didn’t answer my question, merely tried to change the subject. Have you got an answer?

        1. @wolfiness, sorry I thought the videos would answer your question but some how you must have missed the info. So first let’s look at one key fact and flaw in your original question…there are NO FLIGHTS that travel completely around the world so I can’t see where you might get the proof for your claim. Secondly, look at a flight from Australia to South America…look at the flight path on a round map and a flight path on the flat map and tell me which of the two makes SENSE to you. If you can be man or woman enough to come back to me and say you have a “GAZILLION” reasons after comparing those two then I guess that settles it…but I know there are no rationale human being out there that would say that the round earth flight paths, make more sense than flat earth…I believe in you, open your mind to logic :). Btw they are more facts about flight paths than just this example…I will share those too if you would like more info.

          1. flem34 Firstly, nowhere in this video or any of your reasoning are you taking into account economics. All businesses need to run to economy, flight operators will not run direct flights if there isn’t enough demand for them. As for the flight times. Are you freakin kidding me? This is Newtonian physics. Hardly anything new. Hardly anything difficult.¬†
            Planes fly through the atmosphere, not outer space. The atmosphere spins with the Earth. The only reason flying east to west and flying west to east will make any difference in time would be because of the coriolis effect. Even then, flights have a specified take off time and a specified landing time. The pilots, being clever people try to compensate for wind direction, which can affect the duration of the flight, by using, what is technically known as, THE THROTTLE. This piece of apparatus allows them to control how much fuel gets burnt in the engines and therefore controls their AIR SPEED. Air speed is how fast through the air a plane goes. When you vector air speed and air direction you get ground speed which you can then use to calculate flight times.
            Sheesh! Do I really need to explain this to somebody who has access to the internet?

          2. @flem34 We don’t even have to get into flight paths, people have sailed around the world in boats. What according to FE are the eastermnost and westernmost parts of the earth, incidentally?

          3. Wolfiness we can also sail “around” the earth on a flat map. ¬†The reason flights paths are key is because on a globe and flat map the greatest distances between masses of land are in the “southern hemi” or outer edges (on flat). ¬†And again, flights are used as an example because it can make the most sense as to why the flight paths chosen are not what they appear (they make a great deal of sense on a flat map ALL OF THEM). ¬†If it was such a simple answer why not just prove it and shut everyone up. ¬†Let a leading group of FE’ers go to Antarctica to prove their theory or disprove it in your case? ¬†Why are FE’ers not allowed to exercise the ability to prove a theory without restraint? ¬†Because it is “dangerous”? ¬†When have they ever stopped you from climbing Mt. Everest? ¬†When have they ever stopped you from diving to the deepest depths of the Oceans? ¬†But Antarctica is too “Unsafe”? ¬†Why is Antarctica the only piece of land not solely owned by one Country? ¬†To preserve it for Scientist? ¬†We show on a daily basis we have zero concerns regarding the preservation of Earth so why Antarctica? ¬†Oil shortages, and mining alone would give huge companies enough reason to own the land. ¬†Why are you meant by Military forces from around World? ¬†Truly think about that one…can you agree something sounds fishy?

          4. slymonster¬†flem34¬† I totally understand economics and supply and demand…so understanding that, if you are saying a flight has zero demand, then why offer it (or appear to offer it)? ¬†And why can you not even begin to start booking the flight? ¬†Correct me if I am wrong but the only way to know that a flight you are ADVERTISING has no demand, would be by the number of bookings you have confirmed…right? ¬†How can you know a flight won’t be in demand if you don’t allow people to book it? ¬†I have booked flights before and then had the Air Line come back and cancel it due to lack of tickets sold…but I BOOKED it. ¬†So again I ask you, why offer a flight you know has zero demand? ¬†McDonald’s does no offer a 7 patty burger because there is no demand for it…so I ask you again, why offer a flight no one can physically book?

            ahhhh Coriolis Effect…so then you admit the flight times should indeed be VERY different? ¬†Why are they not? ¬†oh yeah that throttle thing you mentioned! ¬†Those pilots…clever people indeed! ¬†Sorry but I just don’t get how this makes sense without some invisible force we can’t detect causing some kind of phenomenon (“we”¬†as in the everyday people). ¬†Cannon ball tests have been done to try and prove this effect but they all come back the same…LITERALLY, the same. ¬†I mean they even shot them straight in the air and in many instances the cannon ball fell right back into the nozzle it was shot from. ¬†There were no trajectory or distance changes regardless of which cardinal direction the cannon balls were fired in…weird!! ¬†Also, consider in this experiment that the “THROTTLE” is the actual firing of the cannon ball and the “AIR SPEED” is how fast its traveling through the air. ¬†Being as though they are all using the same amount of throttle and are identical to each other we should see a difference if this force is exerting its will as you suggest in a certain direction…weird!!. ¬†If the Earth is spinning and so is the atmosphere, us, the land, all are spinning with it how can propelling against or with the force require no additional energy or less energy what so ever? ¬†Nothing in life makes sense to explain this but Science is notorious for taking something and MAKING it work. ¬†Newton’s Law of Gravity is a prime example of this in action. ¬†Without appearing to change subject, Newton’s Law of Gravity failed in equations used on planets like Mercury. ¬†So what did they do? ¬†Created something new and so¬†Kepler’s laws of planetary motion was created. ¬†When something doesn’t work or make sense, they make up something new to make it make sense…thus the never ending cycle.¬†

            At least I can say I don’t understand something, at least I don’t attempt to use invisible forces to explain my thoughts, at least my observations are based on “observations” and not theories that rely on assumptions and created formulas to make the entire thing true or false. ¬†Funny how as kids we believe ALL the time in things we have never seen, detected, or felt…and as adults we don’t appear to have changed much. ¬†When mom said Santa was real and I needed to go to sleep or he wouldn’t come I believed that. ¬†Yeah I had a few questions but she answered my unease with some of the most simplistic¬†of responses and I went right along with it. ¬† The¬†bed time stories are just more elaborate now and are accompanied by insanely large numbers that usually are in the trillions to confuse the shit out of people. ¬†Life itself is a great example of the constant¬†manipulation¬†we are¬†under…this is not even about if the Earth is round or Flat (for me)…I honestly don’t care…it’s about the lies associated with it. ¬†Do your own homework on REAL LIFE. ¬†You will start to see the global¬†manipulation¬†we have¬†been under from what we eat, to why we are at war, to why we are in debt as a society, to what the leading cause of global warming is, etc. ¬†Come back from all of that and tell me you still believe this dumb shit they rattle off. ¬†Wolfiness/slymonster, you two are not dumb and neither is anyone else on this page. ¬†We cannot be at fault for the calculated lies and actions of a few that have brain washed us all. ¬†The things I believe I KNOW are because I don’t need to rely on others to prove them. ¬†Everything, EVERYTHING you know about the above was feed to you. ¬†You never personally observed it, you never touched it, and you damn sure never felt it. ¬†The problem is that for so long we have thought of these people to have merit and be creditable sources, so quite naturally we don’t question the material nor its content. ¬†It very important to know that there are elements of FE that I have a hard time accepting because FE’s don’t know it all either. ¬†But what I do know is that this story has holes in it…deliberate¬†ones. ¬†Sorry,¬†didn’t¬†mean to run on there but a key point to this is the ability to think clearly¬†on your own and we don’t do that enough as people.

          5. It seems very obvious to me that all people everywhere are fed a significant quantity of lies and errors, though their content may vary, because I don’t think there’s one overarching conspiracy. That doesn’t mean EVERYTHING anyone’s ever taught you is bull. And we are all, including the liars, manipulated by more subtle unconscious forces. Everyone is influenced by things inside and outside themselves and has to make their own sense of it. Science isn’t the culprit. Science is a method for arriving at as much objective truth as possible, not an unquestionable authority. ¬†It relies on testable observations and not assumption, it questions itself and accepts when it doesn’t know something yet and admits when it gets things wrong. If it’s not doing that, it’s not science.¬†

            I was just saying elsewhere in a different context that I don’t have the experience or expertise to prove the existence of most things I take as fact. I judge things based on my experience, my understanding of the evidence, probability, consistency, the belief that I am competent and sane and yes, also the judgement, usually in consensus, of people who I trust and respect and who make sense to me. ¬†I would have to be *very* sure I was fully competent and sane if personal experience was going to be my only measure of truth, and I can’t see how anyone can function at all without relying on secondary evidence. ¬†But all of this, unless you are someone who is capable of understanding everything, is indeed fallible and a matter of faith up to a point. I *believe* the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a spheroid Earth and, contrary to you, that it is the flat Earth theory that involves too many inconsistencies and requires infinite explanations to make it compatible with my perceived reality. But your mileage clearly varies from mine.¬†

            I’m afraid not everyone believed in Santa Claus or fairy tales as a child though. I always assumed they were a fantasy we were all pretending was true. I still think I’m right about that. ¬†


          6. Wolfiness Very well written I must say. ¬†And with that acknowledgement I must also admit to my inadvertent hypocrisy. ¬†It obviously was not my intention but I can see the flaw in some of my logic based off this. ¬†I pride myself on being level headed and fair but I feel my emotions sometimes get the better of me. ¬†Thank you for serving me a slice of humble pie ūüôā *NO SARCASM AT ALL!*

            You are correct in your analysis of what Science TRULY is. ¬†My recent encounters with those who dismiss the evidence of FE is usually that “Science can’t be wrong and that everything currently known is fact, no debate” and history has shown us that this is not inherently true nor is it inherently false but it’s CERTAINLY debatable (Which is why I referenced Newton’s Law of Gravity). ¬†So I have taken a more sensitive approach and I can admit I am wrong for that. ¬†I truly love Science believe it or not. ¬†But what I am uncovering is that our most honest and sacred aspects of life are being overrun with corruption and lies. ¬†That leads me to question how much of what I have learned is real Science, and how much is part of a sinister agenda. ¬†Unfortunately, in order to think from this side of the fence, one MUST assume it’s all a lie to begin. ¬†You then can use the facts of Science, politics and observations to bring you back to the supposed reality. ¬†It happens for me a lot…as I stated, “there are elements of FE that I have a hard time accepting” and refuse to accept because I do not believe the claims match what I believe to be true through the 3 mentioned means above. ¬†Everything is not a lie and everything is not a conspiracy…I get that totally. ¬†However, things I once thought to be impossible I see being covered up and hidden with lies and deception from the public, like global warming. ¬†I once looked at this as one of the most noble of causes for Man to fight and stand against but recent facts have shown me that this is an EXTREMELY corrupt operation and we have been fed a 100% lie as to the leading cause of our current global state. ¬†This leads me to question more of my reality and look for more of that “hidden truth”. ¬†If I am wrong so be it. ¬†I don’t want to be right about this at all to be honest but I can’t afford to sit back and just assume I am without asking the tough questions.¬†

            When I first read of how Antarctica is treated on a global scale, that was my first red flag. ¬†Then I kept digging and found more and more. ¬†Maybe it just seems that way but the easiest thing for our Governments to do is squash it, right? ¬†Wouldn’t you want to avoid any kind of public uprising of Government lies and corruption? ¬†I would, especially when the answer is nothing more than a flight over the sea to Antarctica and the ability to explore the entire landscape via helicopter. ¬†It’s the absolute key to FE theory, without it the whole damn thing falls apart and then BAMMMM “theory busted, now get back to real life you crazy FE’ers”. ¬†So for me, the fact they won’t let this be proven by anyone other than Scientist, it’s on constant lock down by Military forces from around the World, tells me SOMETHING is being hidden. ¬†It might not even be that the Earth is flat…it could be totally unrelated…but I truly believe SOMETHING is up in Antarctica and I feel it’s something big beyond what we currently KNOW.

          7. @flem34 Thank you for your reply. It’s rare to be able to disagree with someone over the internet and find you respect them more at the end than you did at the beginning ūüôā

            I think if a flight over Antarctica proved FE wrong most of its advocates would just shift the goalposts and find a way of disbelieving or dismissing it and demand some further proof, because that is what they have tried to do to all the other more than adequate evidence that already exists to proved FE wrong. At some point you have to draw the line and stop humouring people and realise that you will never convince them because their belief is immune to facts.

          8. soaringeagle

            Wolfiness¬†flem34 immune to facts… great term¬†
            but there are trans antarctic flight routes, just not often used for safety reasons.
            there are also 2 airfields at the south pole 1 at the geographic pole where there is a ‘visitors center’ of sorts and 1 nearby at a huge science center
            i have personally spoken to a pilot that flew c110’s fitted with skis on the landing gear so it could land on an ice¬† landing strip
            search youtube for tour of south pole and you will see many videos
            ofcourse flat earthers claim that just cause its the geographic center ..the south pole we rotate on doesnt prove  theres a south pole there  and they claim its just a stick in the ground with a sign  on it
            ofcourse not 1 would ever go and see for themselves
            it costs 10-17 grand to take the trip, but hey they are making that much¬† selling books and pushing this ridiculous “theory” any one of them can¬† prove how wrong they are but not 1 is willing to they claim that theres a secret army guarding the poles
            and i  knew someone who had just been to the pole (several months ago)  showed them photos and ofcourse they accused her of being a nasa or mason agent and faking them.

            as you say they are immune to facts and allergic to anything that could provide proof

          9. flem34 slymonster Ermmm. No. The coriolis affect would make a LITTLE difference. Not a large one. Maybe you should research this a little more. As for the cannonball tests, all I can say is pah! Show me the evidence for this. Or is this just another urban myth? Like so much of your pseudo science.
            There has very recently been a circumnavigation of the antarctic. Maybe you should look it up. It would have been impossible for that particular vessel to have circumnavigated a FE antarctica in the time it actually took.
            As for these non-stop flights that the narrator ‘doesn’t think ever take off’. We have already heard from one business traveller who has caught these flights on more than one occasion.
            And why do you insist that the flight paths make more sense on a flat earth? Why not look into ships courses? All it is is sheer coincidence because of the demand for flights.
            I like the bit you say about never personally observing something. So you observed these cannonball tests did you?
            Hypocrite I yell.
            I have observed many things that go against the doctrine of FE theory. Ships sailing over the horizon, being able to see further the higher I climb. The horizon dropping below eye level. The moon being in front of the sun. The stars tracking across the sky and rotating around Polaris. All of which FE people tell me is untrue. 
            I will always believe my own eyes before some pseudo science nonsense.
            And anyone can visit Antarctica as a tourist if they have the money. You can also apply for a job there. Yes it is a very dangerous place. Very cold, very windy. Even trained personnel have been known to lose fingers and toes through having accidents less than a hundred metres from their permanent bases.

        2. soaringeagle

          Wolfiness flem34 there was 1 flight that traveled completely arond the world nonstop but there have been a number that have done it with ariel refueling

    2. soaringeagle

      Wolfiness because the entire atmospheres spinning with you? gee why is that so easy to explain
      oh yea
      im a pilot  and pilots have to understand the atmosphere they fly through

  65. aplanetruth

    so we spin on an axis at 1,000 mph (yet feel nothing) while rapidly revolving around a stationary sun (yet we observe it move through the sky just like the moon) while the solar system travels around the Milky Way at 500,000 mph (yet the stars are “fixed”) hmmm.

    the moon is 1/4 the size of Earth and 1/6th the gravitational pull and 239,000 miles away and is said to move our oceans twice a day thus making the Earth “oblique” (yet all pictures are round ball and when astro-nots walk in space they only have to go up 130 miles from Earth to escape gravity) hmmm

    Basic spherical geometry says Earth’s curvature is equal to miles X miles X 8 inches, yet the Nile is over 2,000 miles long which means there should be over 12 miles of elevation change up and down, same with the Mississippi, Yangtze, Amazon,etc…yet in most cases only a few feet of elevation change is recorded by GPS.

    and all “stories” come from one Source . NASA ..whose rocket engineer was Werhner Von Bruan, a NaZi V-2 rocket builder and the first NASA admin. worked for Paramount pictures and the U.S. military underwater laboratories as previous job experience. hmmmm

    and it goes on…

    1. yardapekazoo68

      aplanetruth I have also heard that Werners head stone has Psalm 19:1. But I have also read where it says the following:¬†The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handy work. The source of Psalm 19:1 is from Wikipedia. But I feel it’s a gov’t run site, so the information may have been slightly changed to “stars” rather than “firmament”. Since one of NASA’s first tasks was “Operation Fish Bowl” is would be quite ironic if the true epitaph included the firmament. That would be Werners confession that we truly cannot leave the Earth.

    2. aplanetruth All stories come from NASA? What are you talking about? We knew the Earth was a globe and how we moved around in the solar system over 2,000 years ago.
      And you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the ‘weightlessness’ experienced aboard the ISS or by any other astronaut. In order to escape Earths gravity a rocket has to travel thousands of miles per hour, orbiting the Earth, The ISS is not travelling fast enough to escape Earths gravity.¬†
      What is actually happening is that Earths gravity is pulling the ISS down towards the centre, while the speed of the ISS means that by the time it falls a few metres, it has travelled in a ‘straight’ line far enough for it to still be at the same height. The astronauts are actually in ‘free-fall’. They are far from weightless.
      As for your statement about rivers. Do be serious. GPS uses height above sea level, which curves with the Earth. It is also dependant on the GPS satellites which orbit our glorious globe.

      1. AmericanReal

        slymonster aplanetruth Um, no. The earth was considered a stationary disc for all of history until about 500 years ago when Copernicus declared his scientific revolution in the year 1508.

        1. AmericanReal slymonster Um, no.
          Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the globe Earth pretty accurately. And he died around 200 bc.

        2. soaringeagle

          AmericanReal slymonster wrong
          the churches teachings said that certain maps that arent recognizable as maps said that
          but  the polinesians were navigating by za globe earth map by 3000 years ago
          also the diameter of the earth was cruedly measured around then and¬† many cultures¬† had accurately mapped out our movement through the¬† galaxy’
          copernicus had the 1st modern instrumentation to prove it, however prehistoric instrumentation already proved they knew  about the earths movements to a high degree of accuracy

          1. AmericanReal

            soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster Then how do you account for the flat earth map of 1892

          2. AmericanReal soaringeagle slymonster
            It’s not a flat earth map, it’s a projection from a sphere. Just like every other map of globe earth. In case you haven’t noticed, all maps tend to be a flat representation from a certain angle, usually centred on the equator.
            A map centred around the North pole to represent a globe earth on a flat piece of paper is what the 1892 map shows.

          3. soaringeagle

            AmericanReal soaringeagle slymonster Exactly like he said a flat earth map is just a flat map a piece of paper all maps are flat otherwise it would be called globes

    3. soaringeagle

      aplanetruth obviosly you are completely unaware how you sense motion
      maybe your tinfoil hat needs adjusting

    4. charlesgmcd

      aplanetruth I don’t have time to debunk all of your comments so I recommend studding science rather than have these ideas bounce around the echo chamber that is your mind.

      I will debunk the hardest to explain of your comments. You don’t escape the earths gravity at 130mi out. The moon itself is affected by the earths gravity.Escaping the Earth’s gravity (while remaining in orbit) is a question of altitude and velocity. Essentially, every object that orbits the earth, from an astronaut to the moon, is continually falling “down” to the earth. There voracity(the speed at which they move around the earth) is so great that they “miss” the atmosphere and continue around the earth.¬†

      The rest should be common sense, but that one is a bit tricky. Always remember, Everything is Relative!

    5. soaringeagle

      aplanetruth motion, is detected in 2 ways, or to be exact, its detected in  1 verified in another
      when you  jump, spin,  run, whatever you cause the fluid in your inner ear  to move around  which moves tiny hair like receptors and  that detects CHANGES IN MOTION note i did not say motion, but changes in motion.. when your moving at 1000 mph and its completely  smooth, steady, unchanging there is no way to detect it

      now on to verification, sight
      pilots¬† withoit proper instrumentation (that tells you your orientation to the ground) cannot lose sight of the ground by flying into clouds, at night, or under poor visibility, because as your changes in motion are detected when you turn, hut turbulance, speed up or slow down your eyes cannot verify it so you get confused ..especialy if your moving your head around looking outside the cockpit, you get whats called vertigo (literally translates to “wich way is up”)

      so to put this all together , when you can’t sense changes in motion you only have sight to see motion and verify it, the “movement of the sun moon and stars’ wich¬† isn’t them moving, but us
      when you drive down  a highway watching the trees and buildimgs go by do you assume the trees and buildings are moving?  no you ar its the same  you are on a  planet spinning observing its motion.

      http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/ if you want the real truth, not paranoid delusions i suggest you start there

    6. aplanetruth Where do I start. GPS would not exist if it wasn’t for the geosynchronous ¬†satellites ¬†in orbit around our globe Earth. GPS measures attitude as height above sea level, which curves with the Earth. So you really cannot expect much deviation to the height of a river, unless it’s a fast flowing one, flowing down the side of a mountain or over a waterfall.
      As for the moon causing tides. Yes pictures will look circular. A tide is generally only up to about 30 feet max, and only against some particularly shaped land masses. Do you really expect to distinguish this from a photo taken 1000,s of miles away?

  66. RustyShackleford5

    it is actually easier to believe the earth is flat rather than a sphere.  if you believe the earth is a sphere then you have to believe in the magical THEORY of gravity.

    1. soaringeagle

      RustyShackleford5 to disbelieve in gravity you have to disbelieve in your own weight and  believe you can jump over the moon
      but to believe in a flat earth you also need to move the sun, shrink it and find a force besides your massive ego that would cause an entire universe to revolve around our tiny insignificant speck of a planet..

      if you can explain what force would¬† cause the universe to revolve around us i’ll give up my belief in¬† gravity toss you off a tall building and watch you float off into space

      now that would be magic

      1. Wrong, Gravity has never been proven. The so called proof, which has never been completed, is predicated on the assumption that you’re on a sphere. No curve, no ball. Earth is flat. The end.

        1. wgenske “Gravity has never been proven” Oh dear god, i spit my water all over the screen. How can you type such a dumb thing without¬†breaking some fingers on your keyboard ?

          1. rhooManu wgenske you must not see all the idiotic things flat earthers claim on youtube
            you know since gravity cant exist on a flat earth the tides cant be caused by gravity  instead by wind and evapporation
            if you point out that its on an exact schedule with the moon they say the moons gravity cant affect anything cause the moons a hologram

            yes it requires incredible stupidity to believe the earth is flat

          2. rhooManu wgenske There are apparently people who believe that their own ignorance in a given field means that nothing at all is known there.

            Regarding gravity, I would suggest that a very good start might be to look into the work of Henry Cavendish, and what he did around 1797-98. 

            And once you get there, note that nothing Cavendish did is dependent upon the Earth being a sphere. But his work winds up providing very, very strong evidence that Isaac Newton got it right, which in turn means that the Earth basically HAS to be essentially spherical.

        2. wgenske you moron we are on a sphere
          flat earth is impossible

          i got a suggestion

          if you are so certain the earth is flat and gravity doesnt exist, jump off the tallest building you can find
          if you hang there in mid air then your right
          when you splatter on the ground that is pproof you are wrong

          gravity is proven and gravity proves the earth cannot be flat without collapsing into a ball

          the end

    2. soaringeagle

      RustyShackleford5 besides  gravity affects every  mass in the universe and by observing gravities affects on nearby masses we have discovered those unseen masses
      when you see a tiny wobble in a planet or star you know some force is acting on it and you can calculate the mas distance and speed of that object then look and find it right where gravitational pull says it would be
      also to disbelieve in gravity you have to believe the moons a hologram cause the moons gravity affects tides

      so if gravity doesnt exist it has to be wind and evaporation
      but since its on an exact schedule with the on the moon has to be a hologram so it cant be causing the tides

      this is exactly how flat earthers think  in order to presserve what is essentialy a paranoid delusion, not a theory

    3. RustyShackleford5 What a ridiculous statement. So on a ‘Flat Earth’ when you throw a ball upwards, what makes it change direction and return it back to your flat Earth?
      ‘Magical’ theory of gravity? There is nothing ‘magical’ about it. It is well understood.¬†
      Please explain how, if gravity doesn’t exist, you are able to walk without flying off the surface of your flat Earth.¬†
      Seriously, please explain that. I guarantee I will rip apart whatever speculation you can think of, that does not involve gravity.

      1. slymonster RustyShackleford5 Density.  How does a helium filled balloon float upwards?  Does gravity have no effect on the balloon?  How do you explain this?  Gravity is a construct that only exists in your mind.  It has NEVER been proven,  Ever.  It cannot be proven.

        1. wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 Yes gravity has an effect on a helium filled balloon. The denser air gets pulled towards the Earth, at a greater rate than the helium balloon, forcing itself below the balloon. So the helium balloon floats upwards, much like a boat floats on the sea, DUE to gravity.
          As for not being able to prove gravity exists: If I drop a hammer, it will fall to the floor. If I drop it 100 times, it will fall to the floor. 1000 times, 1,000,000 times, the result would be the same. Why is this not proof enough?

          1. slymonster¬†wgenske¬†RustyShackleford5 I would suggest that the law of gravity has never been proven, and is was ever only needed in order to get everything on earth to stick to it, as a result of the earth spinning around its own axis at over 1000 mph (at the equator). ¬†But this theory falls apart as you move north or south, away from the equator, and the “globe” experiences slower rotation. ¬†At the poles, your rotation would be negligible compared to the rotation at the equator. ¬†(Agreed?). ¬†What then does the theory of gravity have to say about this? ¬†Would you not be squashed by your now-much-greater-weight? ¬†I find this very hard to reconcile. ¬†But I know you will correct me, surely. ¬†And thank you for not adopting a sarcastic or offensive tone. ¬†I find it most disturbing when people start throwing insults around. ¬†We’re only trying to get to the bottom of this and find the truth. ¬†Thanks again.

          2. wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 I understand your scepticism. When you mention that at the equator we are spinning at 1000 mph it does seem a lot. However, this is still only 1 revolution per day, (0.00069444444 rpm) so the centripetal force is negligible. The law of gravity is the same at the poles and at the equator.  If anything, the average person would be less than half a pound lighter at the equator than at the poles due to the centripetal force.

          3. slymonster¬†wgenske¬†RustyShackleford5 Ok, now this is getting interesting. ¬†I believe you have just broken a fundamental law of physics, but let’s say you’re right, just for argument’s sake. ¬†If we are on a sphere, what is the curvature of the earth – how do we calculate that? ¬†Is there a formula we can apply? ¬†Thanks in advance.

          4. wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 Sorry but I cannot see that I have broken any fundamental law of physics. Gravity has nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth at all. The only effect the rotation of the Earth would have on anything would be as described.

          5. As I said, let’s put that one on the back burner, for now. Can we address the curvature issue? What kind of curvature could we expect to be able to measure on our sphere?

          6. wgenske I’m still waiting to know what fundamental laws of physics I have broken.
            I’m guessing you either don’t know or just put that up to trick people reading the post.

          7. slymonster¬†wgenske Very simple to answer. ¬†You know about centripetal force. ¬†If you are on a carousel, at the edge of the carousel, you will be spinning faster at the edge, compared to at the centre. ¬†And you can feel this effect. ¬†As you move closer to the outer edge, you will feel more centripetal force acting on your body. ¬†The law is simple. The faster you spin, the more force is acting on you. ¬†This is why gravity was invented. ¬†It was to keep the waters from spinning off the earth while revolving around it’s own axis at over 1000mph at the equator. ¬†But as you move either north or south on your spinning ball, your centripetal force must diminish, just as it would if you were on a spinning carousel. ¬†The closer you happen to be to the axis or centre point, the less centripetal force will be acting upon you. ¬†If gravity is the balancing force allowing all of the earths oceans, and indeed anything that is not fixed to the ball, to overcome the centripetal forces of the spinning earth and stay stuck to the ball, then gravity must somehow magically adjust itself in strength the further you move away from the equator.

            Now, I have a feeling we’re not going to agree on this particular point. So, let’s make this really simple. ¬†Please show me the curvature of the earth. ¬†Does anyone dispute this formula? ¬†

            The curvature of the earth in inches = 8 inches x miles x miles

            At 40 miles, therefore, we get 40 x 40 x 8 = 12,800 inches which is equal to  approximately 1,067 feet.  And yet we can see entire skylines from even further than that.  Surely on a ball earth, ships would not be able to see light from a light house which is that distance, and yet, there are literally hundreds of examples of lighthouses that can be seen from even greater distances.  It makes no sense.  There is no curvature, therefore not a ball.

          8. wgenske¬†slymonster You are so wrong on this point. If the carousel was spinning at 1 revolution per day, how much centripetal force do you think you would feel? Probably none, it would be too little to sense. That is the same as the Earth. 1 Revolution per day. It doesn’t matter how fast that is, because the vector speed is almost a straight line.
            It takes you so long to go from the equator to the poles that there is no way of noticing this change in centripetal force, which again id 1 revolution per day. Again, it’s got nothing to do with speed. Please look up the definition of centripetal force.

            And in any case, gravity would not have to adjust at all. I really cannot understand why you would think it should
            So in summery, it is your poor science which falls down. I have broken no laws of physics as I know the true definition of the forces you think I have contradicted..

          9. slymonster¬†wgenske Again, put the argument to bed, show me some curvature, please. ¬†It’s that easy. But you can’t, so you throw your pseudo-science around instead. ¬†If the earth os a ball, it should have some curvature. ¬†You’ve never seen it. ¬†Why? ¬†No curvature. ¬†Flat. ¬†Completely.

          10. wgenske slymonster I have seen it. With my own eyes. By climbing a mountain I can see it. I can see further. The horizon drops below eye level. I see the stars transit the sky. I see different stars in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere, they also go in a different direction.
            Just because you cannot join the dots does not mean my evidence is nonsense. It is your poor science that is nonsense.

          11. slymonster¬†wgenske I see we’re simply not going to arrive at an agreement, so I wish you the best with your endeavours, whatever they may be. ¬†It’s been fun, but not necessarily productive. ¬†I wish you all the best.

          12. wgenske slymonster Feeling beaten already? Never mind. I suggest you use your own eyes instead of listening to idiots on Youtube.

          13. Beaten? How’s that? You have a ball with no curve. That’s hilarious. I hint he who has been beaten is you, good sir. The end.

          14. wgenske slymonster
            Yes, I would dispute that formula. You have not taken into account the height of the observer.
            The correct formula that you need is:

            x+y + SQRT(H SQR + 2Hr) + SQRT(h SQR + 2hr)
            Where x+y is the line of sight of the observer plus that of the object.H is the height of observer and h is the height of the object.r is the radius of the Earth.
            Ships have their bridges quite high above sea level in order to increase the distance they can see objects from. For exactly that reason. And because the Earth is curved. Lighthouses have their lights as high as possible for the same reason, so they can be seen further away, because of the curvature of the Earth.

          15. slymonster wgenske The curvature of the earth has nothing to do with the height of the observer.  The curvature is the curvature.  Put this argument to be once and for all and please, please, just show me the curvature.  Any will do.  One example.  I can show you literally hundreds of images and videos proving there is no curvature, but you have none showing even a trace of curvature.  None at all.  Zero.  Not one inch.

          16. wgenske¬†slymonster You are so wrong. It has everything to do with the height of the observer. To claim that it doesn’t just shows you ignorance. If you are willing to accept that the height of the object being observed is important then you must concede that the height of the observer is also important.
            Really, this is such a silly statement.

          17. So curvature is dependent on the height of the observer. Hmmmmm. Wrong. A curve us a curve. You can’t show any, so we have to assume your argument, and sphere theory, according to science, using the scientific method – goes out of the window. Bye bye. Flat. Completely. You just have to show me visual proof of curvature, but you won’t even try, because you cannot. Flat. That’s why. The end.

          18. wgenske a cuve is a curve right
            ok lets look at this as a curve in a road
            when you stand on the inside edge of the curve vrs the outside edge  can you not see farther around d the curve from the outside edge

            tye curves a conjstant your position  along the curve determines how far you caan see along thde curve..get it

          19. wgenske¬†slymonster You say that the height of the observer has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth yet concede that you have to be high up in order to see the curvature? I don’t know where to start. Can you not see how unjointed your thinking is?
            Again, you have to be about 90 miles high to see the curvature, this is basic trigonometry. Yet you have already said you will not accept photographic proof from anyone who has ever been that high. Again, that shows your ignorance.
            Show me photographic proof that the Earth is flat. You can’t, as you have to be at least 90 miles high and you have already discounted every photograph taken from that height.
            Asking for proof you will not accept is not asking for proof.,

          20. wgenske slymonster you moron the curve is a constant, how far you see over a curve increases with height above a curve

            i think you must be a troll you cant be this dense

          21. soaringeagle¬†wgenske¬†slymonster¬†RustyShackleford5 Please show me evidence of such curvature. ¬†You can put this whole argument to bed by simply showing us an example of the earth’s curvature. ¬†Again, no fake NASA “images” please – or any other space agency’s images, they’re not trustworthy at all.

          22. wgenske¬†soaringeagle¬†slymonster¬†RustyShackleford5 Please show us evidence for a flat earth. You can’t because it isn’t. The accepted model is that of a globe earth. The onus is on your silly ‘theory’ to disprove the current model with something more accurate.¬†
            We have known for 3000 years that the earth is a globe. You are wrong on so many levels. Your theory of a flat earth requires ignorance of the basic laws of physics. Yes LAWS, not theories.

          23. wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
            Again, NASA has got nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
            I might as well blame my Grandfather for the recent global credit problems because he once bought a house, although he has been dead for 20 years.

          24. wgenske¬†slymonster¬†soaringeagle¬†RustyShackleford5 You really don’t think I’m going to trust a video that gets the first two points completely wrong are you?

          25. wgenske soaringeagle slymonster RustyShackleford5
            So what you are saying is that we should show you evidence which you will then say is not trustworthy? Yes, very logical. Where is your evidence?

          26. slymonster¬†wgenske¬†soaringeagle¬†RustyShackleford5 Are you going to stake your entire argument on NASA’s fake imagery? ¬†Are you really willing to do that? ¬†What about a simple photograph of curvature? ¬†what about the fact that you can see distant objects/skylines/lighthouses from impossible distances? ¬†The earth is so obviously flat.

          27. wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
            No I won’t stake everything on NASA. I will stake everything on 3000 years of knowledge, experimentation and observation though.

          28. slymonster¬†wgenske¬†soaringeagle¬†RustyShackleford5 I see that we’re not going to agree, so you keep your spinning ball and have fun with it! ¬†Your glove earth is flawed at many levels. ¬†Please show me some curvature. ¬†Please. ¬†I beg you. ¬†If you can do this simply thing, you will have an argument. ¬†Otherwise, no need to reply. ¬†All balls have curvature, except yours.

          29. wgenske¬†slymonster¬†soaringeagle¬†RustyShackleford5 Just watch the sunset. That’s proof enough. The sun doesn’t get smaller like it should with your perspective model, it goes below the horizon. Something it could never do on your flat earth. Watch the transit of the moon and stars across the sky.¬†
            Look at the moon from the southern hemisphere, it’s suddenly upside down. Again, only possible using the globe model. Impossible to explain on a flat earth model.
            Climb a mountain and you can see much further, and the horizon drops BELOW eye level.
            Watch ships as they sail over the horizon, then climb a tower to see the ship above the horizon again. Impossible with the flat earth perspective model.

          30. slymonster¬†wgenske¬†soaringeagle¬†RustyShackleford5 The sun absolutely gets larger as it approaches you on the flat earth, and smaller as it recedes and “sets”. ¬†The transit of the moon and stars in the sky are absolute proof that we are on a plane, not a globe – how you can get star trails that are circular on a globe is beyond the realm of possibility. ¬†The trails ought to go from one side of your view to the other, not in a circular fashion. ¬†

            As far as the moon is concerned, very easy to explain. ¬†If you were to put a circular object on your ceiling, mark the top portion as “north”, and walk from one side of the room to the other, you would see the circular shape just as we experience it ¬†We see the north move to the south, and vice versa as we move back to our original position.

            The horizon never dips below eye level.  Ever.  Please show me a video where the horizon drops below eye level, while using a camera that is itself, level.  

            Ships never sail over the horizon, they simply get smaller in our view until they disappear due to convergence. ¬†Rowbotham’s Bedford Level Experiment showed this and this experiment has been redone, many times over, over many bodies of water, extending well beyond the supposed horizon. ¬†With the naked eye, you will see the ship “disappear”, only to be brought right back into view, using a telescope, binoculars or a zoom lens. ¬†This cannot be explained on your sphere.

            The fact that you can see the Chicago skyline from over 50 miles away, is proof that we live on a flat plane.

          31. wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 Where do I start:
            Your first point. If we measure the diameter of the sun, it does not change whatever portion ot the sky it is in. It does not get smaller as it approaches the horizon and larger overhead. IE your flat earth model does not work.

            Point 2, the moon is a sphere. In your example we would have a totally different view or the moon, it wouldn’t be the same view just upside down.

            Point three. I have holiday pics that disprove this. My wife is shorter than I am. When standing on a level piece of ground near sea level and ten feet apart, the horizon is above her head. At three km up a mountain, on flat land and stood 10 feet apart, the horizon is below her shoulders. Try it.

            Point 4. The bottom of the ship disappears first, as expected on a globe earth, whether using a pair of binos, telescope or the naked eye. And again, if you climb a tower and use the same technique to view the boat, it will have come back into view and again disappear bottom first. This in no way is possible except on a globe earth.

            Point 5. I too have seen these videos and photos. Funnily, you can never see the bottom of the buildings. Why? Because of the curvature of the Earth. Not proof of a flat Earth at all, just more proof the Earth is a globe.

          32. Flat earthers believe in creationist/God . I’m an atheist and can’t fathom a thought that something built all this . There’s your answer . Your point 4 . I have seen the bottom of a boat with a telescope from 7 mile . If it went further out I have no doubt I would see it a lot further than that too

          33. Austruth So you’re saying you have an absolutely different experience than anybody on this planet had, have, and will ever have ? That’s Strange. By the way, how do you know it was 7 mile ?

          34. Yep that’s what I’m saying . I was once like everyone else but now I see

          35. Austruth no..you wouldnt and unless you were on a hill you could not see it at 7 miles either
            but thats just it
            flat earthers believe its flat because it could not possibly be flat without a creator  since gravity would make it into a ball the edges pulled in to the center of mass forming a ball

            now heres a simple test you can do  few
            1 through a telescope look at jupiter for several hours you can see it spin as it spins alot faster then earth
            2 with a superzoom camera like the nikon p510- p900 (900 if you can get 1 is freaking amazing its a telescope in a camera you can photograph saturn and  jupiter with) 
            but anyways during a full moon with a camera at a 1000 mm or higher zoom range  take several photos of the moon  with metering, and focus set to center point center the center of the moon in the frame on aperature priority setting and take 1 photo at each aperature click

            if you are unfamiliar with photography aperatture not only adjusts how much light comes in the lens but also depth of feild
            this means  that at a narrow depth of feild a small area around the focal points  in very sharp focus and it gets rapidly out of focus as you go deeper or shallower into the view range

            a deep depth of feild  has much more inj focus wile not having as sharp of focus at the focus point (examples deep depth off feilds used for landscapes where you want everryything in the entire scene reasonably in focus, and narrow depth of feilds best for portraits  or anything where you want extremly detailed sharp focus of the subject and the foreground and background blurred and less distracting from the subject)
            anyways srry for the long boring lesson in photography i just want you to understand why this concepts important
            when you photograph the moon and step up the depth of feild click by click you go from 1 crater in focus the rest blurring out to having the entire moon center to edge inj focus
            this proves the moons a ball
            now flat earthers will say just cause every object in space is a ball doesn’t mean we are too¬†

            but that is simply saying “god made us special, the center of the universe and the only flat planet amongst gazillions of balls”

            thbe entire reason they believe it is flat is to believe that  earth is special, not just another spinning ball jn a giant universe..in other worse   a plane created by some  crazy dude in the sky that wanted to make earth diferent from all others out there

            if your sensible enough to question if there was a creator then your sensible enough to realize that gravity binds every object in the universe and every object forms into a ball due to gravity

            no creator  symple physics
            mass attracts mass  wich gathers together into stars and planets
            and we are just 1 of most likely trillions of planets in the universe and …statisticly its doubtfull we are the only 1 with life

          36. I will take photos from my view from the water on wed morning my time . Then you can google earth it yourself . Unfortunately I don’t have the Mo√ęt to buy a telescope like what you have . I have a shitty one from the 80,s that pisses me off

          37. Austruth Please do. Let us try to explain what YOU actually see, rather than hearsay of what others see. But please be honest about how far above the water you camera is. Well, as honest as you can be, it can be difficult to estimate. But using your own observations is better than listening to the claims of other people. In the meantime, if you can give us the google locations for where you will be and what you will be looking at, we can evaluate whether or not you should be able to see whatever you are pointing your camera at.

          38. soaringeagle

            wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 the horizon the sun setting 
            ok heres curvature for the simple minded explained at a level thata 6 year old can grasp
            at 5’6 you see about 2.3 miles
            at 10,000 feet you see 122 miles

            land based radar can only see planes so far based on their altitude above ground flying under the radar you fly below where the  radar can see you  you can fly to within 2 niles of a radar antena by staying at 5 feet agl
            9 miles by staying under 50 fet

            airborn, plane to plane radar  can see 250-500- 750 miles
            based on the 2 p;lanes altuitudes above the curve

            old sailing ships had crows nests, boddern ships have the bridge, these are set as high up as possible to see as far as possible
            sailboats mount radar reflectors high up on the mast to be seen from as far as possible
            all because of the curve of the earth
            this explains the diference between curvature and perspective proving the earth is curved

          39. soaringeagle

            yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 cant watch those and keep my iq from  driopping 2 points every 30 seconds
            those videos are paranoid delusional conspiracy nutcases, how abot you offer published scientific evidence, physics, geometry,  calculus
            scientific evidence not the ramblings of insane people

          40. soaringeagle

            slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 not sure i get yoir point
            what point were you trying to make?

          41. soaringeagle slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5
            Sorry, the comment was aimed at yardapekazoo68

            The video he posted is trying to say that the onboard cameras couldn’t have seen the moon because of the curvature of the Earth and position of the moon at the time. The link I posted shows where you could have seen the moon from, based on a globe earth, and you could indeed have seen the moon from the surface of the Earth, never mind 70 miles above.

          42. slymonster soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5 got ya haha just needed a lil context and a lil more in depth explanation what you were referring to haha

            man everytime a flat earther says theres no such thing as satellites and  the high altitude balloons are hitting the firmament dome i want to bang my head on the wall enough times to give myself  brain damage just so i can try to understand how they can think that

            i mean i swear i was 3 or 4 when i 1st looked up asked ‘why is that star moving” and was told cause its a satellite..¬† and i can’t remember a single night of looking up at the stars and not seeing at least 2..in my whole life

            how is it possible these people have never looked up and seen a satellite??

            do they really actually believe the stars are just painted  on a dome?

            1 guy today said theres no proof theres a such thing as outer space

            how do these people live on this planet and know so little about their own home?

          43. soaringeagle slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5
            I know. It is very frustrating. They seem happy to just accept facts from some random idiots Youtube video, but not able to accept 3000 years worth of intellectual observation, calculation and experimentation. Or, as you say, don’t seem capable of using their own eyes.

            Their poor science, mathematics and their constant contradictions are embarrassing, yet they can’t seem to see them even when you point them out.

          44. slymonster soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5 i swear its cult mentality
            they go on and on about masons and Illuminati and jesuits etc etc but the  flat earth society seems like a full on brainwashing cult

            i would not be suprised 1 bit if  it wasnt discovered that all thier vids had subliminal messages embedded in them
            i just have no other explanation for how so many can just shut off thier brains and keep repeating the same nonsense over and over  no matter how many times they are proven wrong, laughedd at and called morons

          45. yardapekazoo68

            slymonster¬†yardapekazoo68¬†wgenske¬†soaringeagle¬†RustyShackleford5 Sooooo, what you’re saying is, even though the moon is almost directly over Australia, you can see it from Nevada when you fold the map back into a globe? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.

          46. yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
            Yes. Did you check out the link?. It’s basically for the same reason that when it is daylight in Nevada it can also be daylight on the East coast of Australia.¬†
            We are only talking about 7 or 8 hours difference. How many hours can you see the sun for? How many hours can you see the moon for. You don’t need complicated and inaccurate maths. If you can see the moon for 8 hours during one night, then you can see the moon in both locations that are 8 hours away. And that’s without climbing 60 miles high.
            This is pretty basic logic.

          47. yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 
            yardapekazoo68slymonsterwgenskesoaringeagleRustyShackleford5  If you check out the link and the actual position of the moon at the time of launch you are only looking at four timezones. That is four hours. If you can see the moon for only 8 hours a night then it is logical to assume that you can see the moon from four hours away.
            In the video you posted the moons position is shown for 2am on the 15th of july. It’s not even the same day.
            Come on, if they can’t get that right on the video, how can anyone take his maths seriously
            He used the wrong date to show the position of the moon.

            THE WRONG DATE.

          48. yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
            Apart from the glaringly obvious mistake of using entirely the wrong day to calculate the position of the moon at the time of the rocket launch, he is also using the wrong maths, which he conveniently doesn’t even show you in the video. He just presents it as a fact without showing how he’s worked it out.

            It really is a non-sense video.

            You need to open your eyes and question why he is using the wrong date to show the position of the moon and why he doesn’t show you the maths.

            It’s just fake pseudo science.

          49. Real photographs of skylines as seen from 50 miles, and more. Plug that into your formula for prof of flatness. Nobody wants to prove a ball by just showing the curvature of the earth. How is it possible that nobody can show me just one instance of curve. The ONE thing that ought to be LITERALLY EVERYWHERE, IN EVERY DIRECTION on your ball – yet you won’t even answer my request for one single instance of observable curvature. There’s my proof. The end.

          50. AmericanReal

            slymonster¬†Please help with this question: If the earth is rotating 1000 miles an hour to the east, wouldn’t a ship sailing west have to go over 1000 miles per hour just to avoid standing still?

          51. soaringeagle

            AmericanReal slymonster already addressed that
            standing still in relationship to what?  the earth it6s spinning on? or the  fixed non movig position in space

            lets look at it from both angles from earth a shit going 50 mph is going at 50 mph along the ocean so  if it has 500 miles to go it goes 50 miles every hour taking 10 hours to go 500 miles regardless of direction

            if your observing from space
            the earths spinning going 1 direction it appears to be going 1050 miles per hour in other 950, backwards because the earth is spinning And you are silling out there in space stationary watching the ship move 50 mph against a 1000 mph spin

            so lets look at this from a standpoint of time
            the boat takes 10 hours to go 500 miles  in either direction
            the earth moving at 1000 mph has not completed 1/2 a turn in 10 hours
            lets say both start at 12 noon, neither direction crosses a time zone  so both end at 10 pm
             both travel 500 miles over ground
            from space 1 will appear to be moving backwards toewards sunset as the other moves forward towards sunset

            but both have traveled the same distance over land/water in the same ammount of time

            you have to look at this from 2 perspectives to understand it
            the perspective flat earthers think it should be seen from..; isolated from the earths movement as if they are no0t moving with the earth.. from that perspective yes the ship w]ould have to go 1000 mph to stat still..in spave not on the ground/water

            the other true perspective is viewing it from yourf possition spinning with thde globe
             when you look at a person standing still they are standing still  on the grounfd that is spinning at 1000mph
             you are spinning at 1000mph with it
            1000 mph you think is fast but considering the size of the globe its 360 degrees in 24 hours ..do the math to see how many degrees that is per hour and gyou see its really a slow turn

            a bike wheel spinning at 100 rpm seems lil fast, slow it to 10 rpm and its slow  slow it to 1 rpd  revolution  per day, thats the speed the earth spins at, granted  if you increase the bike wheel diameter to the size of the earth the tire part will be moving at 1000 mph  while still being turning very slowly 
            your average car engine idles at what 6k-12k rpm …at an idle? if the earth spun 1/2 that fast¬† the¬† crust we live on would be¬† about light speed
            are you understanding any of this?  
            it takes 1 day to rotate 1 time
            thats  very slow in reality

            you have to stop confusing movement on the surface of a spinning ball with movemet through space

          52. Oh, now it does make a difference, by a half a pound….how incredibly dumbed down do you have to be to actually believe that dribble. Show the curvature, you will win the argument. That simple. But you can’t. It’s not there. Spherical trigonometry disproves your ball. The end.

          53. wgenske look at the horizon moron theres the curviture
            can you see europe from america? oh gee why not/ if it was flat you should be able to right

          54. soaringeagle¬†wgenske Horrible! ¬†Terrible excuse for a wasted brain. You’re a dumbed down sheep.

          55. wgenske your an idiot force measured  in g force makes things go up or down gravity pulls masses together while  the earth pulls on the moon the moon pulls on the earth get it  but centrifugal force..is a aposing force  pushing you outwards

          56. soaringeagle¬†wgenske¬† You ball preservers cannot get your story straight. ¬†You don’t even know the fallacy you claim to support. ¬†Foolish and childlike. ¬†Sorry, you’re a moron, but one day you will have to come to terms with the fact that your ball is indefensible. ¬†It’s pure fantasy.

          57. wgenske you are diagnosed as learning disabled correct?  if you already know that about yourself why are you so insistent on being right when your so so so wrong

      2. Weight and mass makes it come right back down . That we can prove . Gravity in the other hand has never been proven and never will . A 6ft man is suppose to be able to see 3.1 miles to the horizon yet I can see at least 15 without a telescope . With a telescope, way way way further than that yet I am still only 6 ft off the ground . Refraction, so I now understand only accounts for a small % of light we can see . So please don’t try to pull that BS on me again

          1. rhooManu Austruth the sun and moon magically dont have mass
            or maybe its weight
            who knows ..its all rationalization
            a week ago i thoight austruth had hope of being able to think clearluy again
            now i think he is too brainwashed by the flat earth cult to understand simple common sense and logic

            he is no longer rational

            i really had hoped he was savable

          2. rhooManu Austruth raises hand  ohh ohh ohh teacher i know this pick me pick me
            cause of gravity?
            and cause we orbit the sun and the moon orbits us? they dont just float around magically  over our heads controlled by no force other then the massive human ego?

            see austruth how things just work with gravity but the flat earth nonsense makes no sense at all?
            gravity pulls it all together (pun not intended) and makes it all work

          3. soaringeagle 10 points to Gryffindor! But I want to know his answer too. rhooManu Austruth

        1. Austruth what is weight
          weight is the effect of  a force on a mass
          that force is gravity withoit gravity there is no such thing as weight
          where can you see 15 and no you cannot see farther with a telescope you can see far objects closerr but you cannot see farther
          of you are looking out to sea you cannot see 15 miles unless thee is a temperature inversion
          if you are looking from 1 mountaintop to another across a valley then that changes everything

          your the 1 pulling bs
          define weight
          volume and density determine mass
          weight is only pressent when a force acts on that mass

          1. 3.1 miles is only half way to the island right in front of where I live yet I can see the beach clearly on it . You guys are the ones who are full of it and just believe what your scientist say . I know the map of the flat earth is not right and I know the Suns movements on a flat earth hard to understand if your whole life you have been taught one thing . I am questioning everything I have been taught . 1 bad assumption in the 1500’s had led to people having to lie once they realised what we live on isn’t quite what they said it was ,

          2. Austruth how steep is the beach how hight are the dunes above water level you cant base an entire belkef system on unknown data
            lets assume your 6 feet tall  the beach you see is a gentle slope rising 6 feet  or more

            theres your 6.2 miles

          3. Austruth “I¬†know the Suns movements on a flat earth [are]¬†hard to understand” ‚Üí It’s not hard to understand : it’s just impossible, and you just can’t answer those simple questions with your flat earth idea :
            ‚ÄĒ How could it stand up in the air like this ?
            ‚ÄĒ Why do we see the sun appearing and disappearing at the horizon at dawn and dusk if it’s rotating somewhere up in the sky ?
            ‚ÄĒ How could there be night ? A light source is visible at a very long distance, EVEN if this source is unidirectional (wich the sun is not), so it should be visible at every moment.

          4. Watch a flat earth sun movement video and it wi answer your questions . I’m not saying I believe that . I have questions to .

          5. Austruth No, it doesn’t. I saw a flat earth sun movement video, and this is my answer : it is NOT possible and it doesn’t explain those same questions :
            ‚ÄĒ HOW does the sun hang up in the sky ?
            ‚ÄĒ WHY does he appear and disappear at the horizon ?
            ‚ÄĒ HOW could there be night ?
            ‚ÄĒ WHY can’t I find the end of the earth ?
            ‚ÄĒ HOW can we send satellites up in the air ?
            Round earth solves everything very simply, flat earth can’t explain any one of these.

          6. rhooManu Austruth they claim theres no such thing as satellites 
            1 even said they  spend billions making fake satellites shiooting them up then crashing them into the ocean and tossing them in landfills just to trick us into thinking satellites are real

            ofcourse this is a guy i knew for years who for 11 years had a lemon sized brain tumor
            was never smart at all
            he used to sell dinosaur fossils, he knew they were tens of millions of years old
            but now claims dinos and man lived side by side and we kept them as pets

            i think his tumors coming back

          7. Austruth let me explain something about flat earthers to you
            they scream show me just 1 photo of earth from space  you show them 10,000 they say they are all cgi
            then they show you a 100% obviously cgi video of the flat earth sun mvement and they claim that proves the earth is flat

            stop letting them rot your brain

            i have said this over and over..dxo not watch any more flat earth videos…not 1
            you have questions…we have answers..real answers that dont require magic just physics

          8. rhooManu Austruth austruth
            let me simplify what he is saying
            you have to just abandon the flat earth nonsense that is absolutely impossible by all the laws of nature and accept the spherical spinning earth that makes perfect sense and works exactly as we observe it to work without having to get rid of gravity or move the sun or put up a domde and a mysterious army to guard it

          9. soaringeagle¬†Nope,¬†I don’t want him to just¬†drop it. I want¬†him to explain to me. If someone can’t explain something,¬†it means¬†he don’t understand this thing.¬†So if¬†Austruth¬†stands for this flat earth idea, I want to see if he understands it.

          10. rhooManu soaringeagle Austruth have you ever met a flat earther who was able to defend or explain their beliefs in a logical way?
            austruth isnt as far gone s most of them however over the past weeks he has slipped more and more into their brainwashing

            this is flat earth logic for ya
            me how can the earth be flat when gravity would make it collapse into a ball
            fe’er your so siilly you beieve in gravity?
            me hows the moon affect tides if gravity doesnt exist
            fe’er tides are caused¬† by wind and evaporattion
            me even on windless days mid winter and on a predictable schedule thats remained constant for thousands of years and is in exact sync with the moons orbit?
            fe’er the moon can’t affect tides its a hologram, you must be retarded if you believe the moons real

            this is how flat earthers explain their beliefs

            you think isis and other radical groups  are radical and obsessive these flat earthers are about as radical and delusional as it comes and they are affecting alarming numbers of people

          11. Austruth no did i say you i said flat earthers as a whole are more radical and obsessive then  isis im not saying  that they are terorists just radicals and obsessive

            they do call themselves flat earthers after all
            they dont just say i think the earth might be flat
            they say i am a flat earther the earth is absolutely flat and your brainwashed if you believe anything else
            its very much cult like  in that  flat earther becomes their identity

          12. soaringeagle Austruth
            I find that FE’ers are very much in the ‘cult’ category. I’m not sure I would call them all radicalised, though some obviously are.¬†
            One of the main issues I find is that they do not realise that Eric Dubay makes a lot of money off his ‘flat Earth’. Much like the American priests who live in very large houses whilst their flock lives in poverty.
            Is their any profit in me trying to convince people that gravity exists? Not at all. Is there any profit for Eric Dubay by convincing people it doesn’t exist, absolutely. The flat Earth is just one big money making con. It is only because it is so absurd that the authorities have not arrested him. Then again, maybe that’s why he is living where he does.

          13. slymonster¬†soaringeagle¬†Austruth eric dubay loves to say “your a paid shill how m uch did the masons pay you shill to claim the earth h is round”¬† well eric dubay is a high order mason!¬† he owes all of us alot of money
            maybe we can sue for breech of contract since he  verbally contracted that we are to be paid by the masons  to claim the earths round?

        2. Austruth

          “Gravity in the other hand has never been proven and never will .”

          Then what, exactly, accounts for the results of Henry Cavendish’s experiments of 1797-98?

          1. bobm73 Austruth gravity is entirely proven
            forget about cavandish
            how do you account for  being pulled to the ground whenn jumping out of a plane

            not flatters say its density..stupid as that is
            the red bull space jump was above 99% of all atmosphere meanning the density is 1% of what it is at ground level  but he was still subjext to i think 99.98% gravity

            if gravity was fake only density pushes us down then  he would fall slowly til he hit dense air and accelerate
            but no
            he reached  almost mach 2  twice the speed of sound and slowed down due to wind resistence as he got into denser air

            gravity proven
            ofcourse dropping a  cinder block on your head from 10 stories up will prove gravity rather conclusively

          2. Austruth i did i thought pretty much everyone  did in high school
            my hs wasnt even a very good 1 but the science teachers were mostly pretty good

        3. Austruth Now I am convinced that you do not understand science at all. To state that gravity has never been proven is a fallacy that Flat Earthers use. Gravity has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt by countless scientists down to millions of schoolchildren who repeat the experiments in school.
          I see people have already corrected your view of weight, so I will not repeat that.
          You have stated that you live on plains. I suggest you get a decent topographical map so that you can study whether you are looking downhill when you can see 15 miles.
          As for the part of the statement where you say ‘without a telescope’. I can only assume you put that in because you believe in the false assumption that the Flat Earthers say perspective works and that you can see further with a telescope. This is just not true. Telescopes cannot see further, they just make things look bigger. They work by the light that enters them, the same as our eyes. They are not some sort of magical tubes.

          1. slymonster¬†Austruth flat earthers have to claim gravity doesn’t exist, and mock it as some magical¬† fairy tale you have to be a moron to believe in, because their entire delusion literally collapses (into a ball) if gravity existed

            it is really astounding the levels they go to to believe such stupidity

          2. shannonleeshort

            slymonster Austruth Please forward the links that have solved gravity hypothesis. I would enjoy perusing them. Thank you, much love from Voronezh Russia.

          3. shannonleeshort¬†slymonster¬†Austruth There is no ‘solving’ to be done. Gravity is real. It is evident. There is no argument.
            Sure, you can argue Newtonian or Einsteinian. They are two ‘reasons’ why gravity happens. But in no way do they argue that gravity does not exist..
            Gravity is a law of physics, that cannot be argued with. The reason gravity exists can be disputed. But, and this is a bit BUT, scientists have spent decades trying to disprove Einstein’s theory of relativity (where he theorises what causes gravity) but none have been successful.¬†
            To not believe in gravity is incomprehensibly foolish. It is evident in everything we do and see.

          4. slymonster shannonleeshort Austruth to simplify
            gravity is proven without a doubt to exist and be constant and unchanging
            however the “what causes gravity” is still partially debatable

          5. soaringeagle slymonster shannonleeshort Austruth You said what I was trying to say in a very much more succinct way. Thank you.
            I personally believe Einstein’s theory to be more accurate than Newtons. Not that there is a lot of difference. The fact that scientists have been trying for so long to disprove it, and have not been able to, to me, shows just how clever he was.
            Think of it this way. Hundreds of scientists, probably thousands, would like to be as famous as Einstein.  All they would have to do to become as famous would be to disprove one of his predictions. This is why so much effort goes into trying to disprove him. Not once has this happened.

          6. slymonster soaringeagle shannonleeshort Austruth flat earthers try to claim all of his , and newtons ideas are  wrong

            i had to explain propulsion in  space something like 60 times in 60  increasingly dumbed down ways over a several day period finaly resorting to showing him multiple youtube vids demonstrating it in a vacuum chamber and he still insisted they were faked

            i just love how in 1 breath they say “i rejected everything oi learned in school as a lie” then in the next act like they are smarter then the smartest peoople on earth

            they really are a strange breed arent they

          7. soaringeagle¬†slymonster¬†shannonleeshort¬†Austruth OMG. The whole, jets don’t work in a vacuum thing. They try to cite science for the fact that they won’t work and don’t realise that science would say that jets would be more efficient in a vacuum. It’s just another example of flat earthers selectively believing what they want.

          8. slymonster soaringeagle shannonleeshort Austruth i tried to tell them that a fart in space would propell you haha
            but they insist the gasses need something to push on  and theres nothing to push on in a vacuum
            but others will say theres no such thing as a vacuum that tgheres an ether, wich would be something to push on
            they just cant get their thinking straight at all

          9. There’s a simple demonstration that will show how rockets work in a vacuum; simply stand on a skateboard, and throw baseballs! U0001f609

    1. soaringeagle

      Siela very correct, if you take away the water especially its a very odd ugly shape
      its closer to being round then flat certainly..
      but nothing in natures truly round

  67. Globe earth is not something that one can observe, it has to be taught; it has to be engraved. The globe earth model has been programmed into us since day 1, even when we were sucking binky. That is why it is the DEFAULT position from which we look at the world. ¬† It is no surprise that our first knee jerk reaction, when we first hear of the flat earth idea, is to scream, call people stupid, and immediately tune out…etc. But if you allow some time for the idea to sink in, it is not as outrages as it first sounds, it just takes a lot of time for it to settle.

    Lastly, none of these 10 supposed proofs against flat earth posses serious terminal problems for it. Certain things can be explained differently using flat earth model and it makes just as much sense. ¬†The idea is to get away from some preconceived notions before you start judging. ¬†The writer of this article is still looking at the world through a globed earth lens, not as an outsider would. For example, the center of gravity idea is only needed on globed earth model, therefore it only explains globed earth model. Flat earth does not even rely on gravity, let alone the center of gravity. Therefore the premise of the point is even false. Point #7, does not prove globed earth, it only proves that the celestial bodies are ball shaped, thats all. Globed earth has its own set of problems that people don’t realize. The problem is that hey feel that they do need to justify or even realize those problems because it has “already been established” in their mind that the earth is a ball.¬†

    And there is also that pride that kicks in. People are not too reluctant to admit that they are the ones that could have been fooled this whole life.

    1. soaringeagle

      bgbs other way around dude round earth can be observed can be proven  flat earth  has to be programmed in a cult like way  you have to change every law of nature to make thde flat earth work you have to come up with the craziest nonsense anyones ever heard ..in short you just have to stop thinkig and let the cult programming guide yoir insane responces
      i have never met a single flat earther that can  make a  point that makes sense..not 1 
      they all rely entirely on denial of facts

  68. Birdofthehill

    i highly highly encourage anyone to refer to dr walter martins “the kingdom of the cults” and read as much as you can about each cult described before even listening to a flat earth adherant.
    the sticks method works of done correctly bit you can go on youtube and see flat eartheds using sticks to prove their theory.
    occams razor is particularly useful here as tricking all navy seaman, pilots, artillery commanders and gps devices is like they say “the greatest lie on earth”
    there is no reason to fool people that the earth is flat.
    the disc model that the flat earth society purports is a modern version of flat earth and is highly dependant on manu things like the sun being a spotlight (their defense for time zones)
    smart people can come up with a good argument for anything and the crazier it is the more likely it will be adopted on the interenet.
    i just hope no pilots , military , or most importantlh parents are pulled in to this cult. i predict like all cults it will continue to grow.

  69. AmericanReal

    If the earth is spinning 1000 miles an hour to the east, how can ships travel on the sea going west. Wouldn’t they have to go faster than 1000 an hour just to avoid standing still?

    1. How about airplanes, surely if the earth is a spinning orb, that would wreak havoc with all flights? Firstly, the pilot, at about 500 mph and cruising at 35,000 feet, would have to dip the nose to the tune of about 2,700 feet per minute, just to stay level. But pilots never do this, they fly straight and level.
      If you were flying directly due east, we would have to add some magical speed to that of the plane, depending on our latitude. At the equator, flying at 500 mph, you’d have to add over 1,000 miles per hour to the speed of the craft, netting over 1,500 mph. Or am I wrong?

      1. AmericanReal

        wgenske I’m asking about ships on the ocean, why did you answer about airplanes?

        1. AmericanReal wgenske Sorry, that was an addition to your question, not directed at you, but at anyone looking to answer your question.

          1. soaringeagle¬†AmericanReal¬†wgenske You didn’t answer anything. Your model doesn’t work. ¬†You live on a magical globe where everything appears flat, and motionless, and yet you have introduced two variables which make no sense at all. ¬†Any ball which spins must have some motion which is¬†detectable,¬†observable and measurable. It has no spin at all. ¬†You all admit that the ball, for all intents and purposes has no spin. ¬†It appears to behave as though it is still, which it is. ¬†Further, any ball must have some curvature, but none is available anywhere on the earth, for us to measure. ¬†None at all. ¬†Zilch. ¬†Zero. ¬†Nada, not a bit, not even one inch of curvature. ¬†If you live on a sphere that has no curvature, you’ve come to a complete halt on a flat plane.

          2. soaringeagle

            wgenske¬†soaringeagle¬†AmericanReal You are completely wrong. Look up and see the stars spinning that his motions go to the South Pole see them spinning in the opposite direction that is spinning and proof that we are on the globe look at the horizon. You cannot see beyond it as curvature look at a ship on the horizon as it goes over the curve take out a telescope and try to find it again you cannot say it that’s curvature the earth is curved is proven. Now if you look at for that ship against the climb a tree you’ll see it because as you climb high above the curve. You see farther over a curve. Now day and night as the 24 hours that it takes to rotate the earth. Once that is the art of spinning. How can you be so dense you see the spinning is observable every single day by the fact that you see a day you see the curvature by how far you can see a cannot see any farther unless you go higher than you do see farther that is proof of curvature you live on a magical flat planet that cannot possibly exist because gravity would cause it to collapse into a ball. What would make a flat planet flat. Why wouldn’t exist a can’t it’s physically impossible if the logical absurdity

      2. soaringeagle

        wgenske you have absolutely no idea how planes work
        i’m a pilot so let me explain it to you
        1 planes maintain altitude by 1 pressure altitude, monitoring the altimiter and 2 visual reference to the horizon (fly by stick, cly by dial the computer handles it all)  whenj your flying you are making hundreds of corections a second there is no flying straight, the air you fly through is njearly never stil and smooth so your constantly adjusting roll, pitch and  yaw
        a plane wil folow the curve of the earth because the pressure oft the air folows the curve of  the earth
        2¬† the air spins with the earth, so when you leave the ground at 150 mph and reach a cruising speed of 500 mph thats¬† 500 mph through the air, wich if the zairs still is same as speed over ground, vbut since winjds always a factor wind speed whether flying into it, or with it affe ts speed over ground’
        commonly, you add 1/2 or subtract 1/2 of the wind speed¬† to or from your air speed to gdet the best cruising speed’
        this does affect speed over grund

        but, onoly by a matter of the wind your flying into, or with
        the air..atmosphere (not wind/weather)  is spinning with the earth while the winds moving within the soinnning atmosphere

        1. soaringeagle¬†wgenske Actually, your claim that you are a pilot and the statement that as a pilot you make “hundreds of corrections per second” – are incongruous. You could never, ever, make that many corrections in a second. ¬†You’re wrong. ¬†Aside from turbulence, airplanes attempt to fly straight and level while cruising. ¬†Your statement that a plane will follow the curvature of the earth is also interesting. ¬†What curvature? What is the calculation of the curvature of the earth. ¬†Can you show me some curvature? ¬†Your model depends on it, since it is supposed to be spherical in shape. ¬†No curve, no ball. ¬†Sorry.

          1. yardapekazoo68

            wgenske soaringeagle Not to mention that their gyros operate off of a flat plain with a flat horizon!

          2. soaringeagle

            yardapekazoo68 wgenske soaringeagle And gyros try to remain in a constant state in relationship to what? You got it. The gravitational pull of the earth

          3. soaringeagle

            wgenske¬†soaringeagle Actually you’re wrong, your hands of the sticks are constantly in motion is millimeters of pressure, but you’re constantly making corrections. Again, your wrongs they tried to fly straight but they fluctuate it’s called dynamic and static stability when anything displaces it from level flight it will go the other way than back the other way then back to the way in backing away and slowly rocked back and forth level that is only when the wings have dihedral, instability is built into a fighter jet on the other hand, have negative stability built into them so that they are very easily displaced from a level flight and have to really constantly force it into level flight. We have already showed you the calculations for a curved earth. There is the curve. It is a ball sorry you lose. Talking to flat earthers is like talking to a brick wall. It shown that there is a curve is a where’s the curve we have already told you how to measure the curvature of the earth how to observe it with your naked eye. The end

          4. The end? Show me a picture of the curved earth. Better yet, show me curved water. Your globe must have some of that, right? Nope, none. No curve, no ball. The end.

          5. wgenske how bout i teach you how to see a curve that you look at every day of your life/ go to a beach or lake side (huge lake) with tall buildings nearby
            if your eye height is 5’6 at the waters edge you can see about 2-3 miles across the water
            climb to the roof of the highest building nearby..see how much farther  you see? thats cause yor looking at a curve
            never saw sunset and sunrise?  never wondered where the sun went? thats proof of a curve and a spinning ball
            you see the curve every day yet deny its there

            intentionally denying what your own eyes see plainly

          6. It’s laughable that you could hang onto that statement while I can show you literally hundreds of images of entire skylines across bodies of water, from over 50 miles away. Plug those numbers into your formula and you’ll debunk your own globe. The end.

          7. wgenske actully every 1 of them is caused by a temperature inversion layer causing a supderiour mirage  but you can only tell when 1 exists (often twice a week) by getting an aviation weather report for soaring

          8. wgenske and when you know  when there is a temperature inversion, and the temperature gradient and height  you add thatt into tghe equation and it fits perfectly

            its simply a matter of  people not  fully understanding  all the data needed to get a completely accurate calculation
            but ya know, if they just  go a few feet up, ..and i mean only a few   they  are unable to witness the refraction  and no longer see the skyline

          9. soaringeagle¬†wgenske Wrong!!!! ¬†What you see is flatness…what you’re claiming CANNOT happen on your ball. ¬†Sorry. ¬†See below, visual proof. ¬†Not words, images. ¬†You’re a victim of MK Ultra, totally dumbed down like the rest of the sheep. ¬†Good luck!!

          10. soaringeagle¬†wgenske I never claimed there was a dome. ¬†You’ve shown flat. ¬†That’s what it is. No curvature in ANY of your images. ¬†None. ¬†Sorry. ¬†Wrong…MK Ultra is your God.

          11. wgenske 

            OK, here you go:


            Oh, wait – you don’t trust NASA. OK, let’s look at¬†a few that come from some other source:




            or even


            Now, fair’s fair. How about YOU show us at least one photo of your flat Earth, showing the whole thing? Or if you can’t come up with one, give us at least a plausible story as to why such a thing does not yet exist.

          12. So if you didn’t make corrections you would just fly out into space? Wow!! Why do we need rocket ships then ?

          13. wgenske have you ever flown a plane? driven a car? even rode a bike?
            how about a unicycle
            a unicycles about as close as you can get on the ground
            but in thye sky you are operating in 365 degress every gust every corection you make you have to emediately compensate for
            you  apply a little left stick to  bank left you have to add left rudder to coordinate ca=use  the drag of the higher wing has more lift and drag and attempts to turn you in th e oposu=ite direction then desired  at the same time the nose drops you have to  pull back accounting for increased  g force  in the turn  it will try to over bank so you have to apply right aileron  to keep it from over banking   you are literaly making hundreds  of corections constantly .. the stick migt only move millimeters but its constantly moving compensating for every gust every change in wind speed and direction

            you really are proud of knowing nothing arent you

          14. soaringeagle¬†wgenske I am proud to know I am on a flat plane,not a ball. ¬†You’re wrong, you know it but too proud to admit it. ¬†Sorry, if you want to worship your Mind control, that’s fine, I escaped that cult.

          15. wgenske soaringeagle 

            “You’re a victim of MK Ultra, totally dumbed down like the rest of the sheep.”

            I always find it funny that it’s the flat-Earth conspiracy nuts who consistently – and shrilly and loudly – declare everyone ELSE to be sheep. Especially when it is abundantly clear that very, very few of THEM have bothered to actually check any of this out for themselves (and by that I mean actually performing the necessary calculations and experiments) and instead are just accepting what a very few other nuts have said. And, in turn, as has been repeatedly seen here, those who do claim – and show – calculations, etc., are ALWAYS shown to have made some very basic errors somewhere along the way.

            I mean, come on, people – none of this requires an advanced degree in physics. The experiments and calculations which clearly demonstrate not only a round Earth but also the heliocentric model of the solar system are well within the capabilities of a high school student. So why aren’t you doing your own calculations and showing them here?

          16. bobm73 wgenske soaringeagle you are aware they get their info from youtube vids they can barely read
            and their responses…do they show any signs of intelligence at all?
            i asked eric dubay once “can you count your fingers and toes cause if you can count your fingers and toes i can teach you why the earth is round and not flat’¬†
            he responded ‘umm what?”
            i replied ‘sorry, was the question too hard for you? i asked can you count your fingers, it is important to judge your comprehension level in orrder to dettermine f you are able to understand the simple¬† mathamatics required to prove the earths round’
            he replied ‘umm what/ you think math proves something maths a made up lie put out by the masons’

            wgenske clearly demonstrates an inability to think

            burt bob join us on http://www.flatearthdebinked.com

          17. wgenske 

            And your experience in flying a plane amounts to Рwhat, exactly?

            I first soloed almost 20 years ago. And while it might not be “hundreds” of corrections per second (at least not conscious ones), you ARE constantly adjusting the flight controls to keep on heading and altitude.